Motorhomes and Vehicle Excise Duty
Simon Clarke Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) for bringing this topic to the House today. I am grateful to all Members who have taken the time to attend and intervene and who have taken the chance to stand up for their constituents. This debate makes it clear that while motorhomes may make up only a small proportion of the vehicle fleet on our roads, they play an important role.
Sir David Amess (in the Chair)
Order. I sense that there is some confusion about this debate. It is a half-hour debate. The sponsor of the motion speaks and then the Minister replies. It is for other Members to intervene. Unless permission is obtained, the debate is not for other Members to make separate speeches. There are still many Members here who have attended because they are interested in the matter, but it is simply that they can make interventions.
Mr Clarke
I will of course be happy to take such interventions if colleagues wish to make them. I may regret saying that in a moment, but I will take the chance for now.
As I was saying a moment ago, we recognise the importance of this sector for our tourism economy and that it supports thousands of skilled jobs right across the United Kingdom and, indeed, in certain clusters. Yorkshire is obviously one of those.
To recap the situation, the Government use the vehicle excise duty system to encourage the take-up of vehicles with low CO2 emissions to help meet our legally binding climate change targets. The new VED regulations were introduced in September to aid that, as motorhomes with higher emissions are liable to higher rates of VED than those with lower emissions. After all, transport is the largest sector for UK greenhouse gas emissions, accounting for some 27% of the total. Road transport makes up more than 90% of that.
Emma Hardy
Does the Minister not accept that the Government are taxing new motorhomes, which have a greener engine, at a higher rate, while allowing older motorhomes, which have a dirtier engine, to continue on the lower rate? It is completely illogical.
Mr Clarke
We clearly have to start the new system somewhere. I take the hon. Lady’s point, but I would argue that if we retrospectively hiked tax on existing vehicles, we would face a backlash. The policy is about trying to influence choices at the point of purchase.
The hon. Lady for Newport West said that the options are not available. Clearly we want to incentivise manufacturers to come up with new options, and it is worth pointing out that the stats that I have show a difference of more than £1,000 in first-year VED liabilities between the most polluting 5% of new motorhomes and the bottom quarter. We are trying to encourage people to make rational choices and buy less polluting and therefore less expensive vehicles.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way. A local converter company has told me that the range of low-emission options just is not there at the moment. It has already not replaced five workers who have moved on because sales have dropped. The policy is bad for converters and bad for British business, and it is bad for the environment, because it is staycations that we are damaging. Holme Valley Camping in my patch has also lobbied me, because bookings are starting to be affected by the policy as well. Please will the Minister look at it again.
Mr Clarke
That is a typically passionate intervention from my hon. Friend. I take his points to heart, and the Government are listening. Clearly in this context, we can only make announcements at fiscal events. It is important to note that we are hearing the strong messages that people are sending out.
Mr David Davis
The Minister has my sympathy. I have a sense of déjà vu from the omnishambles Budget, when the last attempt was made to attack pasties and caravans. At the time, I spoke to a predecessor in his post. I said, “You will lose taxes as a result of the impact on jobs, trade and so on.” He said, “Well, we don’t do calculations that way in the Treasury”, to which my response was, “You ought to.” This policy is masquerading as a green policy. It is destroying jobs in my constituency in Haltemprice already. It is hurting the poorest in our society in terms of their natural holidays travelling around the country. As we have heard, it is replacing staycations with trips to Cyprus and so on, which will use more in one trip than these vehicles use in one year. I look forward not to the Minister solving the issue today—I know that that is not within his reach—but to it being solved in the Budget.
Mr Clarke
I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. Everyone who bears the scars of taking on him and his colleagues in the context of the 2012 Budget changes will well remember that. The Government are certainly resolute that it is sensible to have a system in place that discriminates on the basis of emissions. How we calibrate that, and the way in which we operate the system, is kept under constant review. It is worth, in that context, pointing out that the current VED system applies to all light passenger vehicles, not just motorhomes, with a recorded CO2 figure registered from 1 April 2017. That includes all vehicles that fall within the category M1.
I imagine that all Members spend their time reading up on category M1, which covers those vehicles defined as designed and constructed for the carriage of passengers and comprising eight seats or less, in addition to the driver’s seat. In addition, regulations relating to the worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedure include a requirement for any multi-stage build vehicle, including motorhomes, to record their CO2 emissions and fuel consumption on their type approval certificate.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The Minister has just quoted, word for word, what he said about those regulations when he wrote to me on 12 August. He may recall that I made representations to him on behalf of Auto-Trail, a business that operates on the border of Cleethorpes and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici). Auto-Trail forecasts that job losses will occur. The Minister concluded that letter by saying that he recognised the concerns. Will he recognise them even more after today? Otherwise, as other Members have said, there will be another omnishambles.
Mr Clarke
I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. He, like many others, has been assiduous in drawing attention to companies in his constituency that stand to be affected. Clearly, we planned to have a fiscal event in the autumn. Events supervened, and I am very glad that they did, but the March Budget gives us the opportunity to assess the tax, as we do all taxes, in the round.
To defend the Government’s record on this matter, we were explicit that motorhomes with a CO2 figure would be part of the graduated VED system introduced in 2017, and my officials are in constant dialogue with the automotive sector. I have held productive talks with the National Caravan Council, accompanied by you, Sir David. Talk about having a partial Chair.
Emma Hardy
I thank the Minister for giving way again; he is being very generous. Is it not right to say that when the tax was devised, he did not meet with the motorhome or campervan industries to talk about how it would affect them specifically?
Mr Clarke
To the hon. Lady’s point, I was not the responsible Minister at that point. In fact, I think I was not even a Member of Parliament at that point. I genuinely cannot speak to whether those conversations were held, but we are now engaged in dialogue. I have met with representatives of the industry since being appointed. Anyone who is present for today’s debate can see the strength of feeling that exists across the House.
The structure of reformed VED is designed to encourage drivers to make the lower emissions choices that we all want to see. However, the high rate reduces significantly in subsequent years, which means that the VED liabilities in year one are not reflective of the total VED liabilities for a vehicle over its lifetime. The VED charge also remains a relatively small proportion of the purchase cost—these are, after all, expensive vehicles—typically between 1% and 5%. It is therefore a comparatively small charge, albeit that marginal costs obviously add up.
Sammy Wilson
Does the Minister accept that it is not the percentage of the purchase cost that is important but the running costs per year? If a vehicle is being used on the road an average of 3,000 miles a year, a duty of more than £2,000—nearly 60p or 70p a mile—is a substantial increase in its running costs.
Mr Clarke
The right hon. Gentleman raised the issue with me in the House at Treasury questions. He is obviously very committed to ensuring that we look at it again. Of course, VED is a one-off expense that is paid at the point of purchase; it does not accrue to the running costs per se. The way in which we tax that is through fuel duty. If someone drives more miles, they will pay more fuel duty. That is the real correlation and link. However, I recognise that, if people do not use the vehicles a great deal during the course of any given year, VED represents a substantial one-off cost in the first year of operation.
Mr Davis
I thank the Minister for being so generous in giving way. On that exact point, perhaps the best thing to compare, if he wants to look at more than one-off costs, is the first six years, which can be reasonably compared. A light commercial vehicle doing 8,000 miles a year will have to meet £3,325; for a motorhome doing 3,000 miles a year, it is £4,460. It is a ridiculous comparison.
Mr Clarke
We are trying to standardise the way in which we deal with VED. There is a particular grievance at the moment that it applies to motorhomes but not to vans, for example, as the hon. Member for Newport West mentioned. In the 2018 Budget, the Government confirmed that vans would move to a CO2-based emissions system, which will apply from April 2021. At that point we will have at least ended the imbalance between the treatment of one sector and another. Clearly, we need to look very closely at how we move forward, in order to ensure that the operation of VED does not penalise people who use such vehicles relatively infrequently. I understand the distinction between vehicles that are on the road every day or every week and those that may be on the road for only a month or two in any given year.
Craig Mackinlay
I thank the Minister for being generous. The heart of the nonsense is that the Euro 6 engines, which many of these vehicles will now have, are low on particulates. Let us put CO2 aside; particulates are what are important with diesel engines. We are actually encouraging the continued use on the road of older vehicles to the detriment of new ones that are, in the round, better for the environment. We are creating the opposite of what we are trying to achieve.
Mr Clarke
I thank my hon. Friend for that remark. Reducing particulates is a major aspect of Government policy in terms of air quality as well. It is not solely a question of CO2. As I remarked in relation to a question from the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), we are trying to address the matter in a way that does not lead to retrospective taxation of people who have already invested in a vehicle. However, I recognise the point that, were we to create a situation in which it was unviable to buy new vehicles, we would effectively lock them in in perpetuity.
I close by emphasising that we really are listening to the remarks of hon. Friends and Members across the House. We understand the centrality of the sector to jobs and the tourism industry, and the pleasure that people derive from going away in caravans and motorhomes. The Government reformed VED because we believe that tax rates should reflect environmental impact. Although ultra-low or zero-emissions motorhomes may not yet be available, the Government are seeking to incentivise new motorhome purchasers to make the most rational low-emission choices that they can. However, like all taxes, VED remains under review. Any tax changes are considered and announced by the Chancellor as part of the Budget process. As all Members know, the Budget will be on 11 March. Thank you very much, Sir David, and thank you to everyone who contributed.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Clarke Excerpts(4 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
The Government take our environmental responsibilities very seriously, and the Prime Minister established the new Cabinet Committee on Climate Change for that very reason. The UK is, of course, the G20 leader in reducing our greenhouse gas emissions while growing our economy. Later this year, the Government will set out further plans to reduce emissions in key sectors such as transport, energy and building while seizing the economic benefits of clean growth. We have launched a review into the transition to a net zero economy and how that will be funded, and the review will publish its findings this autumn.
Dr Huq
I am pleased to see two ideas in the Queen’s Speech that were recycled from previous Labour manifestos: the waiving of NHS car parking charges, and renters’ rights. Will the Government go that bit further and adopt a third idea, our completely costed green new deal? Greenpeace rated the Labour party as best for the environment, whereas the Conservative party languished in fourth. This idea would help the Government to reach their carbon emission targets, which are woefully off track at the moment.
Mr Clarke
The electorate obviously gave their verdict on the relative credibility of our manifesto. This Chamber, on a cross-party basis, should welcome the real consensus that the UK has done the right thing by becoming the first major western economy to commit to a net zero policy. We have allocated £1 billion for the take-up of ultra low emission vehicles, £350 million for the industrial energy transition fund and £800 million in our manifesto for carbon capture and storage.
The hon. Lady says our ambitions in this area are inadequate, but the Committee on Climate Change report of May 2019 did not consider it credible to reach net zero emissions earlier than 2050. The report called it the “highest possible ambition” supported by the science for us to target 2050 rather than an earlier date.
Helen Hayes
The UK Government currently offer more financial support than any other European state for fossil fuel industries. The oil giant Shell paid no corporate income tax last year due to tax rebates, despite making a £557 million profit in the UK. This situation is unsustainable and unacceptable in the context of a climate emergency. Can the Minister explain how a Government who continue to subsidise fossil fuel extraction to such a degree can ever be trusted to deliver net zero?
Mr Clarke
The most important thing to recognise is that last year was the first year on record in which renewable energy constituted more of our energy mix than fossil fuels. We also need to recognise that oil and gas support many thousands of jobs in the United Kingdom, and we must be careful not to jeopardise economic growth during the transition.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
The best way to reduce carbon emissions is not to produce carbon when building houses. Given that the Conservative manifesto proposes to extend Help to Buy to people who wish to build their own homes, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer knows all about, will he meet me and the Right to Build taskforce to see how it can implement this excellent policy as quickly as possible?
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
The Minister is right about the growing role that renewables are playing in our energy mix, as 2018 was the greenest year on record for our energy system. Does he agree that the UK’s track record on cutting emissions, while maintaining jobs growth and economic growth, is remarkable at a global level and should be applauded?
Mr Clarke
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. It is worth noting that between 1990 and 2016 the UK reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 42% while growing its economy by more than two thirds. We should be proud of that record; it shows that we are on track to meet our targets.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
First, let me associate myself with the comments welcoming you to your place and your Chair, Mr Speaker—long may you sit there.
For what have been described as a “post-truth” Government, here are two clear and simple facts: first, COP 26 is coming to the UK and, secondly, the eyes of the world will be on this Government’s climate crisis policies—or, rather, the appalling lack of them. As Australia burns, millions in African states face climate-driven famine and floods have swept the north of England, will this Government give a damn about this existential threat and act, not posture?
Mr Clarke
It must be said that that was a rather ungracious recognition of the Government’s work in this area. We are clear that COP 26 is the centrepiece of the Government’s work on climate this year; the Prime Minister gave a presentation to Cabinet on it today. There is no question but that, led by our former Friend on these Benches Claire Perry, we have an excellent head of the COP, and we will have maximum ambition. The UK is clear that we are committed to the Paris agreement and delivering on it in full, and by committing to net zero we have led the world in this area.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that this Government do everything they can to help energy-intensive industries to reduce their carbon footprint and do not merely regulate and tax, as some would do, because that risks exporting not only the carbon, but the jobs?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we must avoid shedding jobs as we change our energy mix. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, we got £350 million allocated to the industrial energy transformation fund. I am also a big supporter of new technologies such as carbon capture and storage, which can address the challenges of decarbonising energy-intensive industries.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Happy new year, Mr Speaker. May I associate myself and my colleagues with your remarks of support for the people of Australia? In that regard, may I ask the Treasury Front-Bench team whether this March’s Budget will be a Budget for the climate emergency? If it is, will Ministers look at the ideas of the outgoing Governor of the Bank of England to decarbonise finance and green the City and come forward with the rules and regulations that will catalyse private investment to beat climate change?
Mr Clarke
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. We are clear that this is a central priority for the Budget in March. Obviously, I am not going to disclose details of that today, but the Government have a clean growth strategy. We are clear that green finance lies at the heart of the UK’s offer to the world, and obviously that goes for both the private and public sectors; we need to bring together the whole strength of the country to make a truly radical offer.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
The Government introduced a graduated system of vehicle excise duty to encourage the uptake of vehicles with lower carbon dioxide emissions and to help to meet our legally binding climate change targets. I have held productive talks with representatives of the industry and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess) to discuss this matter, and I am sensitive to their concerns. As with all taxes, we keep VED under review, and any announcements are for future fiscal events.
Sir Desmond Swayne
When we escape the clutches of EU regulation 2018/1832, will the Minister restore the status quo ante as at September last year?
Mr Clarke
My right hon. Friend stands up with a positively lengthy question. As he knows, I share his enthusiasm for escaping certain EU regulations when we leave the EU on 31 January. We are, however, convinced of the need to incentivise the reductions in our transport emissions that I have referred to, which represent a third of the UK’s total CO2 output.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Minister think that this green tax, which has increased vehicle duty by 1,000% for many motorhomes—which are used, on average, for 31 days per year and do about 2,000 miles per year—is fair, and will he review it?
Mr Clarke
The figure of 1,000% is somewhat misleading. Only motorhomes with the very highest emissions would fall into that category, and the extra VED applies only in the first year. But of course we keep all taxes under review. I am sensitive to the concerns of the industry; clearly, a significant number of jobs are supported by it. As always, we keep these things under a watching brief.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
It is a great pleasure to welcome my hon. Friend to her place. The clean growth strategy sets out our proposals to decarbonise our economy during the 2020s. This will build on existing Government spending, including £2.5 billion for low-carbon innovation between 2015 and 2021, £1 billion for ultra low emission vehicles and £4.5 billion for the renewable heat incentive.
Nickie Aiken
I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. I am sure he is aware of the immense appetite within London’s financial and professional services community to invest in green infrastructure and the rapid development of the green and sustainable bonds market. Is he therefore willing to meet me and representatives of the Corporation of London to discuss how Her Majesty’s Treasury can further advise and support further investment in green infrastructure and private finance, and its backing of that?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK is already a global centre for green finance, but we need to do more. That is why the Government published a green finance strategy last July and why we have launched the Green Finance Institute, in close collaboration with the City of London—precisely to drive these outcomes. My hon. Friend the Economic Secretary will be happy to meet her at the earliest opportunity to progress this.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
As always, the Scottish Government are ahead of the UK Government when it comes to climate change and taking steps to tackle this. The Minister rightly acknowledged that the UK Government have to do a lot more. Does he agree that they need to take away the subsidies to nuclear and actually reinvest in onshore wind in Scotland, and allow greater offshore deployment as well?
Mr Clarke
The whole United Kingdom needs to work together to make sure that we deliver on our climate goals. We clearly need a diverse energy mix to help to deliver on that, and nuclear has a clear role to play within that settlement. We are very clear that we obviously monitor all projects to make sure they deliver maximum value for money, but we do need some baseload power.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
I thank my hon. Friend for his characteristically robust Yorkshire question. As a fellow northern MP, I am obviously very keen to get cracking with higher transport infrastructure investment in the north, which the Government are absolutely committed to do. On HS2 specifically, as he knows, the Government have commissioned the Oakervee review to evaluate the scheme. It will report in due course and we will lay its findings before the House.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Can I first congratulate you, Mr Speaker, on your first and second election as Speaker? You are looking very well on it.
May I ask the Chancellor about the problem facing many people who are worried about whether they have cancer? The best way to save the lives of people with cancer is early detection and ensuring that tests come back very quickly. Unfortunately, nine out of 10 pathology labs in England, Wales and Scotland are short of pathologists, which means that people are waiting six and seven weeks. Is it not now time we had a major financial incentive to persuade more people to become histopathologists and pathologists in the NHS?
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
The “back of a cigarette packet” policy to increase road duty by more than 700% for motor homes and camper vans is reminiscent of the caravan tax of 2013, which I think was invented by the Chancellor’s predecessor George Osborne. That would have decimated manufacturing industry in Hull. Will the Chancellor meet me, colleagues and those in the industry, who are very concerned about this policy, so that they can explain directly to him how disastrous this policy will be for manufacturing industry in Hull?
Mr Clarke
I thank the hon. Member for his question. I met the National Caravan Council in October to discuss precisely these issues. We are clear that we need to incentivise the production of lower emission vehicles, but none the less we are sensitive to the concerns of the industry. I will happily meet him for further talks on this issue.
Double Taxation Agreement: Gibraltar
Simon Clarke Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
A new double taxation agreement with Gibraltar was mutually accepted in an exchange of letters signed in London on 1 October 2019 and in Gibraltar on 15 October 2019. The texts of the letters will be deposited in the Library of both Houses and made available on the gov.uk website. The texts will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.
[HCWS19]
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Clarke Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
A new business starts in the UK every 75 seconds. Following the patient capital review, we announced a £20 billion action plan to finance growth in innovative firms. To support that, we have established a new business finance council to ensure that Government, banks and other lenders work together to help small and medium-sized enterprises to access the finance that they need.
Huw Merriman
I welcome all of the Treasury team to their places and thank the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), for letting me work so closely with him. It was an amazing privilege.
I spent an amazing day with my constituency businesses in the village of Beckley. They are concerned about business rates, on which I support their call for reform, as well as about the VAT threshold and lack of taper. They will also now be writing to me about the welcome increase to the national living wage. Can we do more to support small businesses? They are the backbone of rural economies and without them we will not have employment.
Mr Clarke
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and take this chance to thank him, on behalf of the Government, for the work he did with the former Chancellor. He is quite right to talk about tax reform. Of course, since 2016 we have announced business rates reforms and reductions worth more than £13 billion by 2023-2024. On VAT, in the run-up to the 2018 Budget we consulted on the threshold, which is the highest in the EU and the OECD. We have committed to keep that in place until 2022, but I am genuinely always interested in suggestions that I can discuss with colleagues.
Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)
When is the Minister going to do something about the delays in payment to small businesses that often affect their cash-flow? We have debated the issue for many years; is it not about time that the Minister did something about it?
Mr Clarke
Responsibility for this issue falls between the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. A late-payment regulator has been set up. I talked about this issue with businesses at the Conservative party conference on Sunday; I take it very seriously and they highlighted it as an ongoing concern. It should come out loud and clear from the House that all businesses, particularly larger ones, have a responsibility to meet their payment terms, because that is crucial for small businesses. I think everyone in the House can unite around that common principle.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
Is the Minister aware that one of the main difficulties facing small rural businesses is the non-availability of fast and reliable broadband? In the light of the announcement that the Chancellor made yesterday in Manchester, can we now assume that the days in which a geographically isolated business is also digitally isolated really are numbered?
Mr Clarke
My right hon. Friend is of course absolutely right that broadband connectivity lies at the heart of a modern economy. It was so welcome to hear my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday set out how £5 billion of investment is going to be devoted to making sure that we can deliver on the Prime Minister’s pledge to ensure full fibre broadband access by 2025.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Minister outline whether he has considered tax incentives for businesses to take on apprentice staff in administrative roles, with special reference to young people from learning-difficulty backgrounds, who take more time and patience to train? There are simply not enough places available; will the Minister undertake to make places available?
Mr Clarke
Again, that is a unifying principle to bring to the House. The Government have done an awful lot to try to promote the uptake of apprentices—we have seen action on things such as national insurance to try to make it more affordable for businesses to employ young people. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is very interested in all the work that goes on around supporting access into work for disabled people and people with learning disabilities, and would be interested to hear more from the hon. Gentleman about those ideas.
Douglas Ross (Moray) (Con)
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
I discuss matters of importance regarding the Scottish economy with Government colleagues on a regular basis. In July, £32.5 million was allocated for the Moray growth deal.
Douglas Ross
The £32.5 million investment that the Minister has just mentioned, which was also matched by the Scottish Government, made the Moray growth deal the highest funded per head of population anywhere in the country. The next key milestone will be the signing of the heads of terms, so can he update us on the progress made towards that?
Several hon. Members rose—
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Mr Clarke
That was a truly ingenious question. Of course, the UK shared prosperity fund is really important. We continue to make good progress on its design. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government officials have so far held 26 engagement events across the UK with over 500 representatives from a breadth of sectors. This is something that, obviously, has massive implications for Wales, and we are very happy to ensure that we engage everyone in that process.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
The Moray growth deal, like the Clackmannanshire and Tay Cities growth deals, is bringing unprecedented investment into Scotland. Are the Minister and the Treasury considering reprofiling the investment over 10 years, as opposed to 15, as the local councils are asking me to do, so that we can get this investment and this transformational change in our communities?
Mr Clarke
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Clearly, we want to see this investment move forward as quickly as possible. If he wants to raise that matter with us and indeed with the Secretary for Scotland, we can certainly talk about it, but I obviously cannot make any commitments here today.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
On the subject of growth deals, may I ask the Minister, in addition to discussions on the Moray growth deal, what discussions has he had with Cabinet colleagues on the progress of the Mid Wales growth deal?
Mr Clarke
We are committed to bringing forward growth deals across the UK. Obviously, in the devolved Administration areas, we want to bring forward money from our side, but with effect from the Welsh and Scottish Governments as well. We want to see progress across the UK; it is not restricted to Scotland.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
One of the ingredients of economic growth—we have talked about boosting small businesses—is improving the productivity within the economy. What are the ministerial team doing to boost productivity?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he was obviously responsible for this when he was Exchequer Secretary. Last week I met Charlie Mayfield for a very good discussion about the Be the Business fund that the Government have set up to support business-led movement to improve small business productivity. This includes running pilots in Cornwall to support the hospitality sector and in the north-west to support family businesses. There are other schemes, such as Made Smarter, which is a good pilot, in addition to a £31 million package announced at conference 2018 to improve SME management through peer-to-peer networks.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
I am sure whatever cachet I had has now been completely ruined; thank you, Mr Speaker. There are reports that the Government are looking at bringing forward the date of the banning of diesel and petrol cars. Does the Chancellor share my concerns about the fiscal damage of lower new car sales, the lack of electric car infrastructure and the negligible impact that such a virtue-signalling move will have on emissions?
Mr Simon Clarke
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He is a tireless champion of the motor industry, which we all take very seriously. The Government have made a commitment to delivering net zero emissions by mid-century; that is hugely important and has cross-party support across the House. We will not be making any precipitate moves that would concern him without proper consultation fully across Government about the ramifications of any change in that date.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
I very much welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement of pound-for-pound replacement through the shared prosperity fund of the EU funding that Cornwall receives. We are really ready in Cornwall to drive our economy forward. Will the Chancellor meet the local enterprise partnership and all Cornwall’s MPs, so that we can make rapid progress in designing that fund?
Mr Simon Clarke
My hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that the UK shared prosperity fund works for all the regions and nations of our country. I would be delighted to meet her, to ensure that we get all the suggestions from Cornwall as part of the process of designing that new fund.
John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)
Can the Minister answer the question asked earlier by the right hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd): what is the reason for not suspending the loan charge scheme until the inquiry is completed? It is a request not for a change of policy, but just to suspend the scheme.
No-deal Brexit: Short Positions against the Pound
Simon Clarke Excerpts(5 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on short positions being taken against the pound in the lead-up to a possible no-deal Brexit.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Simon Clarke)
It is not appropriate for the Government to comment on specific currency market movements, or on market positioning—
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We cannot hear what is being said.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. My advice to the Minister is simply to project. I know he will do so unfailingly.
Mr Clarke
I will do my best, Mr Speaker. One would not want to be accused of being unduly meek in the circumstances.
We accept the market-based price of sterling and do not have a view on what level this should be. Were the Government to speculate on the value of sterling, it could hurt confidence in our macroeconomic framework. However, as the price of sterling fluctuates in the normal way, Her Majesty’s Treasury believes that investors should be entitled to hedge, including by short selling. The foreign exchange market is a global market, and it is essential that we work with other jurisdictions to ensure a consistent international approach to the oversight of these markets. That is why the UK has supported the work of the Bank for International Settlements to create a single global foreign exchange code, and work is ongoing to ensure that it embeds common standards of good practice in this area.
The United Kingdom will be leaving the European Union on 31 October, whatever the circumstances. We must respect the referendum result. We would prefer to leave with a deal, and we will work in an energetic and determined way to get that better deal done.
John McDonnell
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post and congratulate him on his promotion.
The threats by the Prime Minister of taking our country over a no-deal cliff edge have created inevitable uncertainty in the markets, reflected in the varying position of the pound. Uncertainty, as we know, is the breeding ground for speculation. Evidence has mounted of sizeable sums being mobilised to short the pound, betting on sterling falling in the case of a no-deal Brexit. We have heard nothing from the Government until this morning. On the other hand, the former Chancellor has expressed his concern, saying that the Prime Minister
“is backed by speculators who have bet billions on a hard Brexit—and there is only one outcome that works for them: a crash-out no-deal Brexit that sends the currency tumbling and inflation soaring.”
The former permanent secretary to the Treasury, Nick Macpherson, said yesterday,
“Mr Hammond is right to question the political connections of some of the hedge funds with a financial interest in no deal. They are shorting the £ and the country, with the British people the main loser.”
Others will consider that what makes the situation so much worse is not just that we have speculators gambling on our country’s failure and at our country’s expense, but that the Conservative party has been willing to accept donations from those speculators. We are not talking about trivial sums: in this year alone, the Prime Minister and the Conservative party have received £726,000 from individuals who back a no-deal Brexit, many of them involved in hedge funds.
There are questions to be answered. Can the Minister confirm the Government’s estimate of the scale of speculation on the economic outcome of Brexit—placing bets on risks to our economy? Is there not a danger that the promotion of a no-deal scare by the Prime Minister, resulting in profiteering by his friends and donors, could be a seen as a conflict of interest by any standard, and contrary to the ministerial code, which says that Members
“must avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest”?
Should not the Minister who is responsible for overseeing the risks to our economy stand up to the Minister and tell him how inappropriate it is for any candidate for prime ministerial office, or any party, to accept funds from individuals who are speculating on the potentially enormous risks to our economy from no-deal Brexit? Will the Government now support Labour’s proposals for an inquiry into the finance sector, including the regulation of hedge funds and short selling?
Mr Clarke
The right hon. Gentleman talks about uncertainty, but the only people generating uncertainty in this place are the Opposition. It is they who are selling this country short. They will not vote for a deal, they will not vote for no deal, and they will not vote for a general election. As anyone who talks to British business knows, the main threat to our economy would come from the economic policies we heard set out in Brighton last week.
As I set out in my remarks, the Government’s central position is that we are working to secure a good deal, and the focus of that will be at the summit on 17 and 18 October. That remains our overwhelming focus and our best hope. Clearly, it does not help when the Opposition come together to remove our negotiating leverage in those vital talks.
The right hon. Gentleman referenced the former Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) for all the work he did as Chancellor to help prepare for no deal. We have been able to build on that over the last few weeks. I would note, however, when it comes to some of the more outlandish speculation in this area, that Frances Coppola in the Financial Times, in an article entitled, “The Mythical Bets On No-Deal Brexit”, wrote yesterday that this was yet another “tinfoil hat conspiracy theory”. That is about the sum of the merit of this debate.
The Government will not comment on individual positions—no one would expect us to—or the actions of individuals. We do not accept that there is any prospect of a conflict of interest. Insofar as anyone needs standing up to, it is not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister; it is the right hon. Gentleman, who is making a political and, dare I say it, speculative attempt to throw mud around the House. I did not hear anything in his statement or questions that amounted to a substantive point; they amounted to trying to propagate myths and to smear. In a week when we are trying to lower the temperature in the House, the Opposition seem intent on stoking it. I have nothing further to add.
Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Ind)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his elevation to this important role. While many of us on the Government Benches, and in fact across the House, are concerned about the impact on currency markets of the obvious contradiction between the Benn Act and the Government’s consistent position that we are leaving on 31 October, everybody on the Government Benches is united in the knowledge that the real damage to this country would be done by the Labour party getting any place in government. Every time it makes an announcement, it affects the markets, and that is what gives further uncertainty to this country and that is what would truly damage our economy.
Mr Clarke
Of course, I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. We heard the danger set out last week. I thought that the prospect of a three-day week was bad; well, the Opposition have decided to split the difference and have a four-day week. Much of what we heard in Brighton was a recipe for business disaster and the very damage that we need to avoid and which we have spent the last nine years trying to put right.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The pound was shorting at a two-year high in August. The Prime Minister’s sister, Rachel Johnson, has said that people
“have invested billions in shorting the pound or shorting the country in the expectation of a no-deal Brexit.”
The former Chancellor has said that
“there is only one outcome that works for them: a crash-out no-deal Brexit that sends the currency tumbling and inflation soaring.”
Frances Coppola, who the Minister was keen to quote earlier, said that at the very least there was a conflict of interest. The Prime Minister received at least £375,000 from donors associated with hedge funds during his leadership campaign, and we already know from the Jennifer Arcuri case that he is no stranger to conflicts of interest. Will the Minister launch an investigation into this whole affair, because the public need to know what is going on behind the scenes? Will he also accept that those who are already wealthy seem to have everything to gain from a no-deal Brexit but that my constituents and thousands and thousands of others across these islands are still struggling to make ends meet after a decade of austerity and it is they who have everything to lose?
Mr Clarke
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. We served together on the Treasury Select Committee. She speaks about her constituents. My constituents in Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland could not by any metric be described as wealthy and they enthusiastically support the idea of our delivering on our manifesto commitment—and indeed on the referendum result—to leave the European Union. The Government’s position on no deal is very clear: we want a good deal, a fair deal, that does not leave this country as a rule taker in perpetuity. If we secure a deal, my point, very simply, to the Scottish National party would be: if they want to avoid no deal, they should vote for the deal we bring back.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appearance at the Dispatch Box. Does not that limp excuse for an urgent question reveal the contempt the Opposition have for financial markets, which contribute 11% of tax revenue to the Exchequer? Does he agree that the fact that, of the $6.6 trillion of currency dealing done globally, 43% is now done in the City of London—a record high—is a vote of confidence in the City and the way the Government are handling it, and how far does he think the pound would fall if that lot on the Opposition Benches ever got into power?
Mr Clarke
The pound would need a good head for heights in that scenario. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The City of London is, of course, one of the great assets of this country and something we should celebrate rather than castigate. It is a source of enormous tax revenue, which underpins our vital public services, and there is no doubt that it is one of the key cards in our hand when it comes to the Brexit negotiations and securing a good deal. So I absolutely agree with him. We sometimes need to do more to talk it up, rather than talking it down.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
Is not the implication of the Minister’s first answer that the authorities would allow the currency to fall indefinitely, without intervention, if that is where the market leads?
Mr Clarke
The Government’s position is that we do not adopt a fixed target for sterling, as clearly we believe that it is sensible for the currency to find its own level in various circumstances. Obviously that freedom for the currency to float is important. Look, all of us in this House believe that the country will succeed in a whole variety of different scenarios. I believe that sterling will find an appropriate level in any scenario, and clearly there are aspects of a fall in sterling that would make it easier to export, so it is not a zero-sum game. We have to trust the market to find its own level.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
There is one obvious point, even for people, like me, who are not economists: if we talk down the country and the economy, that is where the economy will go. Thank goodness the Labour party is not in power, because it would destroy the economy.
Mr Clarke
That is exactly the point I was making, because we need a bit of self-belief in our country. Here we are in the world’s fifth largest economy, and in a country that is widely regarded around the world as a bastion of strength, and we will absolutely succeed in all scenarios. When it comes to Brexit, the Government’s strong preference is to get a deal, but the overwhelming point that people need to hear from this Dispatch Box is that we are leaving the European Union on 31 October, delivering what the people asked us to do, and indeed what most of us in this House were elected specifically on manifestos to deliver.
Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)
The Guardian is today reporting that Crispin Odey is shorting house builders and shopping centres, which means that in the event of a no-deal Brexit, when they cannot build homes and more shops close, he will make a packet. Surely the Minister can see that there is a massive conflict of interest, particularly for the Leader of the House, who has been financed by that man for years.
Mr Clarke
The passion that the hon. Lady shows is certainly a match for what I heard when I was in Bishop Auckland recently to address some of her constituents, because they were very clear that we should be leaving the European Union. I have already said that I do not propose to comment on the actions of individuals, because clearly it is for them to account for their actions. The Government do not take a position on the actions of individuals. We do not take a position on the issue of short selling.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
May I welcome the Minister to his post? Does he agree that a sure-fire way of stopping speculators benefiting from a no-deal Brexit would be for the shadow Chancellor and his comrades to vote for the Prime Minister’s deal when he brings it back and to stop no deal in the first place?
Mr Clarke
I agree with my hon. Friend. Clearly, if we can secure a good deal that is fair to this country, which is our central aim, that is what everyone in the House should get behind, because that will take our country out of the European Union on the smoothest basis—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) says “Fantasy” from a sedentary position, but what I think is fantasy is the idea that our chances of securing a good deal are improved by continuing to propagate a surrender Act. That is the problem, I am afraid to say, that lies at the heart of this debate. The Opposition are, in essence, trying to take power without responsibility, and it is highly unfortunate and detrimental to this country’s interests if we do not all work together as a nation to deliver on what we, as a country, decided was our future course of action.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Can the Minister confirm that the Government’s own economic assessment shows that a no-deal Brexit would have the most damaging consequences for the British economy, investment, jobs and businesses? As that is the case—[Interruption.] Well, we have all read the assessment produced by the Government. As that is the case, can he explain to the House why he is prepared to contemplate that outcome, given the impact it would have on British business?
Mr Clarke
The right hon. Gentleman makes a point that we have often debated in the House. We believe on the Government Benches in delivering on the referendum mandate, which was to trigger article 50 and leave the European Union. The operation of article 50 is clear—we leave with a deal if we can secure it, but without a deal if we cannot. The Government have invested billions of pounds in no-deal preparation. Much of that money has been invested subsequent to the November 2018 report, which did not touch on dynamic policy options open to the Government after we leave the European Union. I think in my own region, for example, of free ports. The modelling is not perfect, and does not encompass all the options that are open to us. None the less, as I say, the base case—the Government’s working assumption—is that we will leave the European Union with a deal.
That is what we are working towards. The crucial summit is only three weeks away, and it would help if the House got behind the Government’s efforts to try to secure a sensible deal, take us out and move the country forward. This is the umpteenth debate that we have had in the House on this issue. We go round in circles and do not make progress, because one side of the House refuses to contemplate any sensible way out of this impasse.
Several hon. Members rose—
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
Thank you Mr Speaker, you are very kind. It is wonderful to see the Minister in his place, oozing calm and authority, in sharp contrast to the stoking of fears and division on the Opposition Benches. We have just heard about the risk to the economy, but the real risk to the economy is not Brexit nor yet a no-deal Brexit. The real risk is letting the shadow Chancellor anywhere near No. 11 or the Treasury.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Does the Minister not find it ironic that the shadow Chancellor should be concerned about the future value of the pound and the impact on speculation, given that he and his party have spread economic gloom and doom, have talked the economy down, and have proposed lunatic economic policies if ever he should get his hands on the levers of power in this country? Does the Minister agree that the real honeypot for speculators is not our leaving the EU but the prospect of a Labour Government?
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. He is doing brilliantly in his first appearance at the Dispatch Box. He discussed bringing certainty to the markets by delivering Brexit. The main message that I hear from constituents in Harrogate and Knaresborough is that after three and a half years of talking there has been enough talking—why do we not just get on with it? Does he agree with them?
Mr Clarke
I thank my hon. Friend, who has been a distinguished holder of this office. He is absolutely right. There is in all walks of life a demerit to uncertainty. There is a real problem whereby we marched the country up to the top of the hill in the run-up to 29 March, then had to march down again. We are close to our projected exit date of 31 October. It would be really, really problematic for all those businesses that are making preparations, and in some cases stockpiling provisions as well, to keep going backwards and forwards on this question. The country voted to leave in 2016. It reaffirmed that by voting by over 80% for the two main parties that were committed to delivering on that result in 2017. We need to get on with the job. There would not be anything for people to speculate on if we could achieve certainty in the House.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Over the weekend, I watched “The Big Short”, and I would encourage everyone to watch that film about sub-prime mortgages. In it, there were several hedge funders who made billions from the collapse of the market. They did not care that honest, ordinary Americans lost their homes and jobs. When that happens, when we have a no-deal Brexit and hedge-fund managers make billions, how will the Minister support my constituents, who will be impoverished, and will perhaps lose their jobs and homes? What is he going to do to level the playing field? Actually, it is a question of morality.
Mr Clarke
I am an historian rather than an economist, but I certainly do not take my lessons on hedge fund activity from Hollywood. We need to be very clear about the fact that there is a real need to provide certainty, and that certainty is hugely important.
Let me say gently—and it is gently—that I did not vote for the deal on the first two occasions when it came forward, for the very reasons that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not do so, namely the concerns about the backstop provisions. Those provisions need to be addressed, and we are working to address them. Fundamentally, we did vote to leave, on a deal or no-deal basis. The hon. Lady’s constituents voted to leave the European Union. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) says, from a sedentary position, “Not on a no-deal basis.” I find that my constituents are very clear about the fact that they voted to leave, deal or no deal, and that was very clear at the time.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new position. He is truly doing sterling work this afternoon. It will come as no surprise to him to learn that I am fully in favour of well-run and smooth capital markets, from which London is reaping an international reward. Would he care to speculate on what sort of short-selling and sterling damage would be done under the Labour party—given their unfunded tax proposals and their potential sequestration of public assets—and what the market would think of them if they were anywhere close to power, which I pray that they will not be?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am afraid we cannot get around the fact that we are now dealing with something very dangerous in terms of the division between the two parties: the division between economic rationality and a programme that would well-nigh destroy the free-market economy in this country. [Interruption.] Labour Members scoff and sneer, but the reality is that anyone looking at the prognosis from the Labour party conference last week—let alone the trillions of pounds of commitments that Labour is now adding up—will see that it would not only destroy our public finances, but would do massive damage to the competitiveness of British business, on which jobs and homes and mortgages depend.
Mr Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (IGC)
Does the Minister accept the specific conclusions in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s fiscal risks report? In July, the OBR ran a stress test on a no-deal scenario, on the model of the International Monetary Fund. It predicted that sterling could depreciate by 10% immediately, because
“market participants judge that a fall in the pound is needed to compensate for the reduced competitiveness with the EU… inflation is initially higher, due to the weaker pound”,
which contributes to the UK’s entering “a year-long recession”. Does the Minister accept the OBR’s analysis, or does he believe that this is “a price worth paying”?
Mr Clarke
What I will say is that I believe we can avoid that scenario entirely if we get a good deal and leave the European Union according to plan, on 31 October. We are very clear about the fact that, in a scenario whereby we cannot get a deal through the House, we will deliver on the referendum mandate and leave the European Union. That is uncontested Government policy. We will ensure that we make the dynamic policy choices that will enable our economy to remain strong, robust and full of opportunity.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Would my hon. Friend care to comment on this splendid irony? Mr George Soros, who in 1992 made a fortune in short positions against the pound, is now one of the bankrollers of the Continuity Remain campaign.
Mr Clarke
Tempting as it is to follow the trail laid down by my hon. Friend, I will content myself with saying that, just as I would not comment on the actions of individuals in my reply to an Opposition Member, I will not comment on the actions of individuals now. However, the idea that there are vested interests on only one side of the debate could clearly be contested.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
One of the areas of the economy that the casino-style hedge funds will be betting against is the housing market. What assessment has the Treasury made of how many fewer homes will be built, and which section of the house building economy will be worst affected: renters, first-time buyers or pensioners?
Mr Clarke
To the best of my knowledge, we have not commissioned specialist advice on the housing market. If I am incorrect, I will ensure that that is set out in writing to the hon. Lady. It is very clear that the UK housing market is in its most robust condition for many years. Indeed, we are now building many multiples of the situation we inherited in 2009, when house building had well nigh stagnated. Of course, many of the problems faced in our housing market stem from the disastrous failure of the last Labour Government to build enough homes in the first place.
Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)
Uncertainty hits not only the London markets but the markets in Edinburgh and elsewhere across the United Kingdom. Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to end this uncertainty is to vote for a deal, as he did back in March?
Mr Clarke
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Yes, I did vote for a deal on 29 March, and I did so because I feared losing Brexit altogether. I think that was a real risk at that point, and it remains a real risk now, thanks to the antics of the Opposition. If only all of Scotland was as well represented as those areas represented by the Scottish Conservatives, who of course have adopted a totally sensible and unifying position, which is that we should get on and deliver, as one country, what our one country voted for.
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) (SNP)
The economies of the UK were damaged almost irreparably by spivs and speculators in 2008. Have the Government and the Prime Minister learned nothing from that experience, which hit the poorest in our society the worst? This is not about whose policy position is best or worst; this is about transparency, honesty and the Prime Minister’s relationships with these short-changers to society. Will the Minister acknowledge the seriousness of the matter and call an independent investigation into the Prime Minister’s conduct?
Mr Clarke
Actually, this is about democracy and whether we implement the result of a national referendum in which more than 34 million of our fellow citizens expressed their view. For my part, I intend to honour what they voted for. That is the position of this Government, and I think that view is shared by anybody who understands the damage that preventing our leaving the European Union would do to faith in democracy.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
My hon. Friend is doing a great job on the Front Bench, to which we welcome him. This urgent question is deeply partisan and political—we all know that—but it strikes me that our economic growth looks pretty good this year. PwC also predicts pretty good economic growth. Just to negate the nonsense coming from the Opposition, can my hon. Friend tell me how well preparations are going for a no-deal exit?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: the third quarter figures for the UK economy look very robust. Clearly, there is a lot to be said about the ongoing work to make sure that we are ready for a deal or no-deal scenario. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor delivered the spending review earlier this month and today he will give an excellent speech in Manchester, no thanks to the Opposition, setting out our plans for how we move forward. Clearly, we are deploying billions of pounds and the most robust plans available to make sure that we are ready to thrive in all scenarios.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
When the last Conservative Chancellor, a former permanent secretary to the Treasury and the Prime Minister’s own sister blow the whistle, the Minister simply cannot brush aside these most serious claims of a conflict of interest. Some of the Prime Minister’s biggest donors are clearly betting against Britain, and, intentionally or not, the Prime Minister is aiding and abetting them by pursuing a no-deal Brexit. I therefore ask again: will the Government set up an urgent independent investigation?
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that speculation in the future movements of markets or currencies—some people think they will go up, others that they will go down—is a sign of a healthy free market economy, and that there is no speculation in the direction of travel of the shadow Chancellor’s favoured economic model in Venezuela, where the bolivar continues to crash, which is hardly surprising because inflation there is running at about 1 million per cent. this year?
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend puts it with his customary robustness, but he is absolutely right that the real threat to the economy, to the strength of sterling, to our competitiveness and to jobs and living standards across the country would be a series of bad decisions made by a reckless, hard-left Labour Government.
Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)
My constituents and the Minister’s constituents are working multiple jobs and long hours to keep themselves afloat. Does he understand at all just how distasteful it is for them to see people making millions betting against our country?
Mr Clarke
I yield to nobody in my appreciation of how hard people work in the Tees valley and, indeed, how passionate they are about our area, but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that democracy needs to be honoured. We need to deliver on the referendum result and to get this done. There will no actions for the City to take if we get a good deal across the line and the hon. Lady votes for it.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
In June, the Bank of England reported that, thanks to the mitigation and preparation put in place by the Government, any hit to GDP in the event of a no-deal Brexit would be reduced by two and a half percentage points. Will the Minister, whom I welcome to his position, confirm that we have had more preparation since then? That means we should be further protected, meaning these individuals will not make their money.
Mr Clarke
My hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right that we are stepping up our preparations to cover all eventualities. That is why we made provision in the spending review, which was designed to ensure that we go into this autumn with the options open to us kept as wide as possible. Of course, it is also why the provisions of the surrender Act, which the Opposition brought forward against the will of this Government, are so unwise.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
Does the Minister not understand that my constituents in Bristol West are smart enough to spot the hypocrisy of Members on the Treasury Bench telling us that we should vote for a deal when, first, none exists and, secondly, they did not vote for it last time? Does he not understand that my constituents can also spot the other hypocrisy of criticising people for making uncosted spending assessments mere hours after the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care said he does not know how he will pay for all these hospitals he has promised us? Does the Minister not understand that my constituents can spot all of this?
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The best way to stop the speculation and the uncertainty is for the Government to accept there is a majority in this House that will not let a no deal happen and, therefore, if the House does not agree a deal, we will not, in fact, be leaving on 31 October.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
In response to an earlier question the Minister said he is more of a historian than an economist, so he might remember that hedge funds were also reported to have taken short positions against the pound during the 2016 referendum. Is he satisfied that the regulation of short selling and hedge funds is adequate?
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
In the interest of transparency, will the Minister agree to publish details of all call logs and meetings between every Minister and Crispin Odey?
Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Ind)
Is not the shadow Chancellor peddling conspiracy theories about shadowy figures working with the Government to manipulate the economy for personal gain because he is a self-proclaimed Marxist who wants to undermine trust and confidence in how our economy and our country work? [Interruption.] It is no laughing matter, as that is what he is trying to do. There have, in fact, already been two investigations into these wild claims. One, as we heard earlier, by the Financial Times that said this is
“firmly in the realm of conspiracy theories.”
The second investigation was by the independent fact-checking organisation Full Fact, which demolished this crazed nonsense in an article headlined, “We think there’s a big error in that viral article about hedge funds and Brexit”.
Mr Clarke
Would that all parts of our country were as well served as Dudley is by the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right: it is genuinely dispiriting that in the mother of Parliaments we find ourselves debating material that is more fit for the tinfoil hat brigade than for Parliament at a crucial time in our country’s history.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
As deputy general secretary of the old Transport and General Workers Union and then Unite, I led the battle against the Kraft takeover of Cadbury. A successful and profitable British icon was taken over by a debt-laden American multinational because the hedge funds bought 31% of the shares and sold Cadbury short. Does the Minister not recognise that there is a potential conflict of interest when we have a Prime Minister prepared to sell Britain short by way of a no-deal Brexit, backed by those who make billions daily out of selling our nation short?
Mr Clarke
The short selling regulations cover the sale of shares, so that falls within the remit of the existing legislation. Clearly, we all want to see our country thrive and move forward towards a better future. That will be best done by voting for a deal, as of course many of the members of the hon. Gentleman’s former trade union will have done.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I hope the Minister recognises that we are talking not about companies protecting themselves in good faith from the devastating impact of a no-deal Brexit, but about large-scale—industrial—shorting of the pound, that that can drive extreme behaviours, as well as market crashes, and that, at the very least, this needs to be investigated by the Electoral Commission, in order to see what the influence is. But my question to the Minister is simple: does he know the level of exposure to the shorting of the pound?
Mr Clarke
The Government do not take a view on this issue. [Interruption.] But what is clear is that the hon. Lady can avoid the outcome that she so wants to avoid, by voting for a deal when one is brought forward—that is, and always remains, the case. So we now need to move forward with some purpose, rather than with wild speculation, trying to smear the Government as somehow being in hock to these interests—it is not working. Any rational observer will see that this is not an argument that sustains itself.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Minister keeps trying to make this about leaving the EU on 31 October or not, but it is all about transparency and conflict of interest. We are talking about hedge fund managers who previously backed the leave campaign and in 2016, after the referendum, made some £350 million overnight. Therefore, £375,000 of backing to the Prime Minister is nothing compared with the billions of pounds these people might make if there is a no-deal crash out. Surely the Minister understands that this is about a conflict of interest and transparency. If he is so confident about the Government’s behaviour, why does he not authorise an investigation?
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Let me give the figures some context. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that back in 2016 Odey fund management made £300 million on shorting sterling. By contrast, the UK automotive industry has spent £350 million ensuring that it is protected against a no-deal Brexit. Does the Minister not recognise that we are vulnerable in our manufacturing sector—in our heartland communities—to losing jobs and businesses because of the practices of these short sellers? Lord Macpherson, the former permanent secretary to the Treasury, has tweeted:
“Mr Hammond is right to question the political connections of some of the hedge funds with a financial interest in no deal. They are shorting the £ and the country, with the British people the main loser”.
What does the Minister say?
Mr Clarke
I point to the wise words of the Opposition Deputy Chief Whip in the House of Lords last November, who said that short selling
“is not necessarily the evil practice that the popular press held it to be…It had a role.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 November 2018; Vol. 794, c. 706.]
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Short selling may have a role, but not when Government policy deliberately manipulates the currency to provide a big pay-out to individuals who have paid huge amounts of money either to the Conservative party or to individual right hon. Members. That is the problem. Does the Minister not understand that this is not about the Government’s taking a position on currencies? It is about the stink of something that does not seem quite right.
Liz McInnes (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab)
The Minister quotes Frances Coppola, but she also said:
“Many hedge-fund managers see Brexit…as an opportunity from which they obviously hope to profit, and they are positioning their portfolios accordingly”.
She fears that that creates “psychological pressure” on the Prime Minister
“to deliver what his backers want rather than what is in the best interests of the country”.
How can the Minister convince the people of the UK that the Prime Minister has the moral courage to resist that psychological pressure?
Mr Clarke
The Prime Minister has the moral courage to deliver on the referendum result, take our country forward, deliver what millions of people voted for and make our country a better place to live. If we are going to exchange quotes, let me quote a bit more from the article:
“In short, there is no evidence that the hedge funds that have backed Johnson’s election campaign have ‘millions of pounds’ of speculative bets on no-deal Brexit. They have millions of pounds of speculative bets on UK companies, yes, but that is simply business as usual.”
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
The reason why this is not business as usual is that we are faced with Government Ministers who have close connections with and financial interest in some of the speculative funds and who are making a decision that would have catastrophic consequences for my constituents and for businesses in my constituency, and there is no transparency as to the closeness of that relationship. It cannot be divorced from what is going on in this place, which is why the Minister needs to agree to the requests for an inquiry. We need to get to the bottom of this.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)
How does the Minister defend a situation in which anyone who is caught insider gambling deliberately to fix the result of a game of cricket goes to jail, but anyone who is insider gambling deliberately to crash the economy is likely to end up in the House of Lords?
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I welcome the new Minister to his place. Will he clarify the statement he made earlier that the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), is part of the tinfoil hat brigade perpetuating a conspiracy theory in regard to this serious matter?
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
A number of hedge funds expect to benefit as a result of their short positions on a number of sectors in the economy, including construction and shopping centres. It cannot be right that as a deliberate result of Government policy those hedge funds are going to cash in at the expense not only of those sectors but of the constituents of every single Member of this House.
Mr Clarke
Government policy is to leave the European Union with a deal, if at all possible, and that remains our central case. The hon. Gentleman’s question in many ways summarises the past few minutes, in so far as it does not get to the substantive point, which is that the only reason we are at risk of a no-deal exit is that we have not managed to persuade the Opposition that they should get behind our attempts to secure a better deal rather than seek constantly to undermine them.
European Union (Withdrawal) Act
Simon Clarke Excerpts(6 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Davis
That is what is laid out in the proposal, but the transition will then come to an end, and at the end of that, we will still have to make a decision on where we are going, backstop or no. I am afraid that we are always in, and the point is that it is at the behest of the European Union, not at our behest. I have nothing against the European Union, but it is the negotiating partner that may gain an advantage from delay.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
May I reassure my right hon. Friend on that point? It is clear from article 3 of the protocol that it is not necessarily a right for us to have that extended transition. We can only ask for it, and that is a different thing.
Mr Davis
Yes, that is also true, but the general point is that the overall timetable is not in our control; it is in the other side’s control. As we have seen throughout this entire negotiation, the moment we gave away sequencing at the beginning, we gave an advantage to the other side. My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West (Mr Jones), the former Minister of State, is nodding: he remembers it.
There are essentially three emblematic conclusions to this. The first is the World Trade Organisation, which we have talked about already—I doubt whether it will be a deliberate conclusion, but it is a possible one—the second is Norway, which a number of Members on both sides of the House have suggested might be the best outcome, and the third is Canada plus, plus, plus. There are compromises between them; there are mixtures of them; but those three essentially capture the possible outcomes.
Let me start with the issue on which I disagree with pretty much everyone who has spoken so far: the World Trade Organisation deal, the so-called no deal. The Chancellor called it a strict no deal, because he knows full well all the preparations that have been made in the Government to create a basic no deal, or basic negotiated outcome. There is a whole stratum, a whole spectrum, of possible types of no deal. Some of them deal with the issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) raised earlier—aviation, data and so on. If this deal goes down, as I think it will in a few days, there will be a scramble in London and Brussels to start putting those one-on-one, unilateral negotiations together. So there is a range of possibilities.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
Reflecting on the recent debate in this House and in the country, I wish to open with the words of Sir Winston Churchill from 1934:
“all down the centuries, one peculiarity of the English people…has cost them dear. We have always thrown away after a victory the greater part of the advantages we gained in the struggle. The worst difficulties from which we suffer do not come from without. They come from within…from the mood of unwarrantable self-abasement into which we have been cast by a powerful section of our own intellectuals. They come from the acceptance of defeatist doctrines by a large proportion of our politicians… Nothing can save England if she will not save herself. If we lose faith in ourselves, in our capacity to guide and govern, if we lose our will to live, then indeed our story is told.”
Sadly, what has characterised these negotiations has been exactly that spirit. The Government have approached Europe as a supplicant, accepting a series of conditions that have led inexorably to this place. At the heart of that lies the backstop, but I will not rehearse arguments that have been well echoed this afternoon about why it simply does not work. Our own Ministers, the Irish Government and the EU have all made clear that under no circumstances will there be a hard border in Ireland. If this is a prison, it is one into which we will lock ourselves if we sign up to this deal.
Despite the Government’s best efforts to convince us otherwise, the EU clearly wants us in the backstop—why wouldn’t it? It would have total control of our trade and customs policy; it would have our £39 billion. It would have ensured that we cannot out-compete it through level playing field provisions, and it could offer unilateral access to our economy and its trade negotiations with third countries. That must be rejected. It may be that our doing so will finally prove to the European Union that, as the Prime Minister long insisted, no deal is better than a bad deal. I continue to believe there is a better deal to be done, but we must face the possibility that that may not be possible.
In such a case, I am clear that we should leave on 29 March next year on World Trade Organisation terms, in accordance with the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I do not say that lightly. It will require courage and resolution, as well as a dynamic policy response that should include exciting ideas such as free ports. For reasons that are bewildering to me, the Government have failed to initiate serious preparations for that scenario when there was good time to do so. That was not due to negligence; rather it was a conscious policy lest—God forbid!—the Europeans understood from our making such preparations that we really were resolved to leave in earnest. That has been a lamentable failure and must change now, for every day is of value.
That must be accompanied by a wider change of policy. If the deal is rejected by the House, as I hope it will be, the ghosts of “Project Fear” must be exorcised. They have offered bad counsel for far too long, seeking always to reduce the path of negotiation to a minimalist and apologetic legal separation, rather than a great nation setting forth into the world.
My final words are to those colleagues who seek to prevent a clean Brexit through amendments tabled to that effect. I say simply that they should think well upon it, because without a clean Brexit we truly would be hostages to fortune, choosing only between the Scylla of a bad deal and the Charybdis of a second referendum, and that latter scenario would do untold damage to people’s faith in democracy. People in forgotten parts of Middleborough and East Cleveland voted to leave. They still want to leave, and they want to leave properly, preferably with a good deal agreed in honour, but if necessary, by trusting in our strengths, and with resolve to succeed as a global free-trading powerhouse.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell).
Members will have noted during this week’s business a most sincere and clear lack of pleasure from the Democratic Unionist party in what is happening. I was not pleased to learn that the legal opinion of the Attorney General was not to be made public; I was not pleased to learn that the Attorney General shares my concerns about the undesirable features of the backstop; and I had no pleasure in the vindication of our demand for the legal opinion, as it backed up my biggest fears.
The legal opinion is clear that the protocol is
“binding on the United Kingdom and the European Union in international law… NI remains in the EU’s Customs Union, and will apply the whole of the EU’s customs acquis… Northern Ireland will remain in the EU’s Single Market for Goods and the EU’s customs regime, and will be required to apply and to comply with the relevant rules and standards.”
It is little wonder that constituents in my fishing village of Portavogie have always been clear that they want fewer restrictions and they want to be less encumbered and less prevented from fishing in their own waters. In Portavogie, Ardglass and Kilkeel we have been on the frontline of EU aggression and bureaucracy.
About the insurance policy, Ministers have told us, “We don’t want it and they don’t want it.” Well, if none of us really wants it, why is it there? That is the question I ask myself.
Jim Shannon
No, I will not give way.
Why is the insurance policy almost the only thing that has been agreed? If it will not be necessary, why have we spent 18 months discussing this and little else? I am not a fisherman by nature, but I know codswallop when I see it, and that is what this is. And for good measure there is the £40 billion. My goodness, who in their right mind would do that? It is unbelievable.
What rational person would think that Europe, which has fought so hard for this and which has pinned all its bargaining and all its red lines on this one insurance policy to ensure there is no legal form of leaving this international treaty unilaterally without consent, will ever decide to allow us to walk away when there is no mechanism legally to compel it to come to an agreement? Not me and, let us be honest, not anyone in this House. Please forgive me for expressing some disgust in a promise made by some in this House that has then been denied us—those Members, and the Government, know exactly who I am referring to.
We are small but we are part of this wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I sincerely believe that we can and will survive the Brexit process, but only if we stand together. The Belfast agreement clearly says that Northern Ireland remains in the UK until a majority vote to leave is plain. It states:
“Northern Ireland in its entirety remains part of the United Kingdom and shall not cease to be so without the consent of a majority”.
Yet the Attorney General clearly states that we are now a third country. So can that be legally acceptable? I say no.
The red line that my party has—I have heard Members referring to this—is not in red pen; it is in the blood of family members, people such as my cousin Kenneth Smith, of neighbours, of colleagues and of constituents—of your constituents and mine. They have shed blood to defend the right to democracy and to determine that nothing can enforce a united Ireland other than the will of the people. The Government have created the potential for an all-Ireland. Members must be very clear about what I am saying here, as I mean this. They must see the mistrust I have for the Government at this moment in time. They have drawn a dust sheet over the lines drawn in the precious blood of so many I loved. This Government are proposing to allow my beloved Northern Ireland to become a violated, voiceless, vetoless victim of Europe’s desperate grasp for control over our UK.
So next Tuesday, I am going to stand up for my people, and I urge others to do the same. I will stand up for our own nation and for our own good. I urge the Government to go back to Europe with the courage of their conviction that this UK will be no one’s vassal state and that Northern Ireland’s blood-bought birthright is not for sale.
Dr Fox
My right hon. and learned Friend is right. It is certainly true that the draft political declaration was not as favourable to an independent trade policy as the final declaration is, given the changes that the United Kingdom insisted on in that negotiation. I was much heartened by those changes, not least because the declaration talks of building on and improving customs co-operation, not just building on it, and it cross-references the other elements of that to include protection of our independent trade policy.
Mr Simon Clarke
On the subject of forecasts and scenarios, may I refer my right hon. Friend to Open Europe’s excellent report, published this week? It is clear that the gains from artificial intelligence over the next 10 to 15 years will more than outweigh any conceivable loss from any scenario surrounding our exit.
Dr Fox
Indeed—my hon. Friend is right to say that that was correct in all scenarios. The doom and gloom pushed in some quarters is not consistent with the reality of Britain’s economic performance.
Now is the time to raise our sights and acknowledge that there is a world beyond Europe and there will be a time beyond Brexit. The referendum settled the question of our departure from the European Union. This House voted overwhelmingly to hold that referendum. The British people voted on the understanding that we would enact the result.
In 2016, we did not have a consultation with the British public; we were given an instruction to negotiate this country’s withdrawal from the European Union. That point was made in powerful speeches by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) and my hon. Friends the Members for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan) and for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), among others. They all come from different parts of the political debate—a clear indication that we have to find a compromise that makes this workable. The withdrawal agreement achieves just that. Most importantly, it enacts the democratic will of the British people.
I remind the House that this is the only deal on the table. It has been painstakingly negotiated by both sides and of course we do not have every single thing that we wanted—but then again, neither did the EU. That is the nature of international agreements. The deal is a compromise, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) in an outstanding, personal and passionate speech, the likes of which we would love to hear more of in this House. That message was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Antoinette Sandbach) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green).
Do I think the agreement is perfect? No, I do not. Did I think it would be? No, I did not. But does it do enough to get us out of the European Union? Yes, it does. For those who want another referendum, let us be very clear: the one thing that will not be on offer in any further referendum, just as it was not in the last one, is the status quo. The status quo has never been on offer; this is a dynamic progression in the European Union. The EU is committed, as it has been since the treaty of Rome, to ever closer union. We wish our European friends well in that endeavour, but it is not the right course for Britain. We must be free from the one-way ratchet of federalism, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) said in his powerful intervention.
Oral Answers to Questions
Simon Clarke Excerpts(6 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mel Stride
The hon. Lady raises the issue of the CDS system. The current expectation is that that will be fully functioning by the end of March next year, which means we therefore have a robust back-up in the extension of the CHIEF—Customs Handling of Import and Export Freight—system. This is to make sure that that gears up for the huge increase in the number of customs declarations that will need to be made in a no-deal situation. We will of course continue to work hard on that matter.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
Further to the answer the Financial Secretary gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), will he publish, when he is publishing the CGE analysis, the assumptions underlying all potential EU exit scenarios, including those on World Trade Organisation terms and with a free trade agreement?
Mel Stride
The commitment we have made is that the deal agreed between us and the EU—we are confident we will achieve exactly that—will be fully analysed in an appropriate way and delivered to this House so that during the days in the run-up to the meaningful vote all Members of the House will have an opportunity to properly study that analysis.
Freeports
Simon Clarke Excerpts(6 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I beg to move,
This this House has considered the establishment of freeports in the UK.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I thank the Backbench Business Committee, chaired by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for granting this timely debate, and the many supporters who helped to secure it, in particular the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field). He is a great champion of both Brexit and the north of England, and is held in the highest regard on both sides of the House. He has asked me to pass on his apologies today; he is unfortunately detained on Merseyside.
What is the issue that unites us, and what is a freeport? At its simplest, a freeport is an area that is physically within a country but legally outside it for customs purposes. Consequently, goods that enter a freeport do not incur import duty. Instead, import duty is paid only if and when goods pass from the freeport into the domestic economy. That offers a number of advantages, as, for example, goods can be imported, processed and then re-exported without incurring any duty. That incentivises international businesses to use the freeport as part of their supply chain, thereby stimulating domestic manufacturing and creating jobs in the process. The deferral of duty also enables goods to be stored or processed in the freeport before entering the domestic economy. That allows businesses to better control their cash flow and, again, encourages domestic manufacturing, as import tariffs on processed goods are often less than those on the individual component parts.
In addition to the benefits accrued through duty-free status, freeports often offer their users a number of additional advantages, including tax reliefs and a simplified regulatory environment. It is important to stress that there is no one model of freeport. All freeports are different in the mix of advantages that they offer and the physical form that they take—I think we will hear from colleagues today about issues ranging from seaports to airports. The debate, therefore, is about not only whether the UK should establish freeports, but what form they should take. I will begin, however, by briefly describing the case for freeports in general.
Freeports are not a new idea; indeed, approximately 3,500 freeports are now operating in more than 135 countries. The UK is unusual in that we have no operational freeports. If we are to compete seriously in the global trading system once we leave the EU, that has to change, as my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) pointed out in his excellent paper for the Centre for Policy Studies.
Wherever freeports have been implemented properly around the world they have had that effect. Just look at how quickly and impressively the Jebel Ali free zone in the United Arab Emirates has transformed Dubai. In the space of a few decades, that free zone has brought unimaginable wealth to that country. The free zone alone now hosts 7,000 global companies, employs 145,000 people and accounts for around 40% of the UAE’s total direct foreign investment.
Jebel Ali is the most unique and dramatic example, but freeports have demonstrated their worth in highly developed and mature economies as well. The growth in freeports in the US, for example, has outperformed the US economy as a whole. One report predicts that if freeports in the UK were as successful as those in the US, we would create an additional 86,000 jobs. There is every indication that freeports in the UK would be just as successful as those around the world—perhaps even more so, given our excellent links with the United States, Europe and the Commonwealth.
A report commissioned from Mace Group by my fellow Conservative, Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen, looked at what a programme of supercharged freeports in the north of England might mean for our economy. It found that such a programme, once established, would boost UK trade by nearly £12 billion a year, create 150,000 extra jobs across the north, including 17,500 in Tees and Hartlepool, and provide a boost to northern powerhouse GDP of £9 billion a year—equivalent to £1,500 a year for every household in the north.
Although the jobs created by freeports would extend to the service sector as well, the vast majority would be in manufacturing. That in itself would be another huge advantage for the UK economy. Although manufacturing as a share of our economy has declined from 32% of gross value added in 1970 to 10% today, it still accounts for 13% of business investment, 50% of UK exports and 70% of business research and development. It also creates high-paying jobs, with the average worker in manufacturing earning £3,400 more than those in the rest of the economy.
Increasing the size of our manufacturing sector is also central to boosting the stagnant levels of productivity that the Government have rightly identified as a key structural challenge for the UK economy. As the Government’s industrial strategy White Paper points out:
“The productivity of the sector has increased four times faster than the rest of the economy”.
By boosting the share of manufacturing in the UK economy, freeports would have positive effects on productivity, wage levels, the current account deficit, investment, and research and development.
Although I would love to see freeports dotted around the entire UK coastline, like giant magnets pulling in container ships from all around the world, I also want to fly the flag particularly for Teesport, and I am delighted to see my friend the hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) here to make that case. Situated immediately adjacent to the site of the former Sahaviriya Steel Industries steelworks—now the centre of the largest regeneration project anywhere in the UK—Teesport is undergoing huge investment to prepare it to rival the major ports in Europe. It handles more than 5,000 vessels each year and around 40 million tonnes of cargo, on an estate covering almost 800 acres. Teesport has all the qualities that will allow it to prosper as an international hub for trade and supply chain processing: deep water access that allows volumes to be maximised, the availability of extensive brownfield land surrounding the port, excellent transport links to the rest of the country, a ready supply of skilled workers, and a local economy that has so much unrealised potential.
For all the reasons that I have set out, I strongly believe that freeports could transform the economic growth and prosperity of the north-east, as well as the wider UK economy. However, as I have mentioned, freeports come in many forms, and it matters a great deal for the success of a freeport that it consists of the right features. Members may be aware that the UK has experimented with freeports once before. My researcher dredged out a wonderful report from the 1980s by the Adam Smith Institute, setting out the experiment that was launched in 1984, giving six ports around the UK freeport status: Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Liverpool, Prestwick airport and Southampton. All those freeports, however, failed to achieve the success that we have witnessed in others around the world, because they did not offer anything like the advantages that could be acquired in many other freeports outside Europe. That was partly due to an uncharacteristic lack of ambition by the Thatcher Government, but mostly due to the regulatory constraints placed on them by the EU.
It is therefore crucial that, if and when we reintroduce freeports to the UK, we allow them the oxygen that they need to breathe and come to life. That is where I take issue with the Government’s current position. In his reply to a written question from me earlier this week, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury emphasised that the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, which I am sure we all know well, already provides a legal basis for the designation of free zones, and will continue to do so following our departure from the EU.
I am a great admirer of the Minister, and I know that he is deeply committed to boosting our economy. I am also genuinely grateful for the supportive conversations that I have had with other Treasury Ministers about how we could aim to deliver a new generation of freeports. However, if we are not prepared to go further than we did in the 1980s, the results will be the same. During that first freeport experiment, Dr Eamonn Butler and Dr Madsen Pirie, by surveying the characteristics of freeports around the world, produced a list of the advantages that freeports need to succeed, and I will mention a few of them now.
At the macro level, freeports must be able to offer lower levels of taxation and less burdensome regulations than exist outside. Those conditions are crucial for attracting new business, creating jobs, and encouraging start-ups. Freeports also need to be able to curb bureaucratic administration by having both automatic concessions and collective processing. Automatic concessions would mean that freeport users do not have to undertake the costly and lengthy process of applying for individual concessions, such as for inward processing relief. Collective processing would also reduce paperwork, as the freeport operators would deal directly with customs documentation on behalf of all, or a number of, their tenants.
Successful freeports must also offer their users security. The heightened security around freeports is often perceived as a necessary burden, required to prevent smuggling. However, the existence of a highly secure customs perimeter affords freeport users huge cost savings in the form of lower insurance premiums. High-value stock is also more secure, and the insurance need cover only the duty-free, rather than duty-paid, value of the stock.
The final advantage that all freeports must be able to offer businesses is improved cash flow. To an extent, it will arise naturally because of the ability to defer duty payments until the goods actually leave the freeport, but additional measures can be taken. Ideally, VAT should be scrapped on transactions within the freeport so that businesses are not required to wait for needless VAT refunds.
In summary, we should not aim to establish the type of insipid freeport that one finds across the European continent. Instead, we should aspire to construct supercharged freeports like those found in China, the US and the middle east.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful and compelling case. He mentioned that freeports come in all shapes and sizes. Does he agree that the UK’s regional airports present an opportunity to expand freeports or free zones? It is good to see the Minister in his place; does my hon. Friend, like me, look forward to a positive answer from him to the call for freeports, not only in the north-east but in our regional airports?
Mr Clarke
I agree completely that the opportunities are not restricted to Teesport or even to seaports. Airports could be a logical centre for such innovation; I know of freeport zones in Tennessee that are centred around local airports and that keep spreading prosperity to areas that are not naturally at the centre of current economic success. That is the point: freeports can really diversify the benefits of a liberalised economy into areas that have struggled to attract the levels of inward investment that other cities or areas have enjoyed. Regional airports should absolutely be part of the strategy. I think the Government would broadly agree that if the idea is taken forward, it will not be in any way restricted to seaports.
Why are freeports back on the agenda now after a three-decade hibernation? The answer, of course, is Brexit. Leaving the European Union is the perfect opportunity to establish supercharged freeports, for three reasons. First, we will be free from EU regulatory restraint and will therefore have the freedom to create something meaningful, rather than just glorified bonded warehouses. Secondly, as we pivot from Europe to the rest of the world, we will need to be even more competitive to attract new business. I cannot emphasise enough that if we accept a looser economic relationship with Europe, we will have to establish better ways of enhancing our trade relationships with the rest of the world or the exercise will lose all economic meaning. Thirdly, in the event that we end up with no preferential trading relationship with the EU, freeports will help us to maintain frictionless trade, especially for just-in-time supply chains.
That brings me to my final point, which is about our future relationship with the EU. The type of freeport that we can introduce post Brexit is inextricably linked to the type of relationship that we forge with our European partners. At the heart of the question lies state aid, on which the EU has much more stringent rules than the World Trade Organisation. The most fundamental difference is that under WTO rules, only “financial contributions” count as subsidies, whereas the European Commission defines state aid as
“an advantage in any form whatsoever”.
Although setting up a freeport is possible within the EU, the state aid restrictions make it impossible to set up the type of successful freeports that we want and need, with power to attract meaningful levels of foreign investment and incentivise the onshoring of jobs. Crucially, members of the European economic area are automatically bound by all EU state aid rules, while Canada, in its new comprehensive trade agreement with the EU, applies none of them. If we are serious about establishing freeports in the UK, our future relationship with the EU will therefore need to look a lot more like Canada plus than like EEA minus.
From the proposals in the Chequers White Paper, it looks as if the freeport opportunity will die without a shot fired. The White Paper pledges that
“the UK would make an upfront commitment to maintain a common rulebook with the EU on state aid”.
That makes really depressing reading. By committing to apply the entire EU state aid rulebook, we are tying our hands and sapping our ability to attract foreign investment, boost international trade and ultimately create thousands of jobs in the UK, mostly in manufacturing.
To avoid any misunderstanding by the Government, I want it to be crystal clear that, for me, that is not good enough. The whole Chequers approach is characterised by the desire to split the difference between being a member of the EU and being an independent country, but it ends up delivering the benefits of neither. Along with the wider democratic deficit involved in our voting to leave the EU, but then accepting being a rule taker, that is why I must end my speech by emphasising that I am deadly serious that I cannot and will not support the Chequers proposals if they form the basis of an agreement with the EU in a few weeks’ time.
Freeports are one demonstration of why we would fare far better in a looser trading relationship with the EU based on a super-Canada deal. The remaining negotiating time should be spent in practical engagement on the Irish border, to which very clear solutions have been suggested and which I believe is much more about a political than a practical obstacle. It is very simple: time—both for freeports and for a proper Brexit—is running out.
Judith Cummins (Bradford South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Mr Clarke) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field) on securing this important and timely debate.
We have heard how our ports play a vital role in facilitating our global trade, and about their importance to coastal communities and regional economies. However, 95% of our goods trade passes through our ports, which is significantly higher than the EU and international averages. Our businesses depend on our ports to get their goods to overseas markets. Our ports handle an estimated 500 million tonnes of freight each year, making our port industry the second largest in the EU, with more than 100,000 people in towns and cities around our coast employed directly, and many thousands more in supporting and related businesses. In 2015, the maritime sector accounted for approximately £4.7 billion in tax revenues—some 0.7% of the total tax take that year, with the port and shipping industries being the largest contributors.
I welcome the renewed focus on the maritime sector in the wake of Brexit. Although it is right that we consider the role that ports play, we must also consider that role in the context of Brexit. The Department for Transport estimates that in 2017, 55% of international tonnage passing through UK major ports was to or from the EU. It is still our largest trading partner, accounting for 44% of our exports and 53% of our imports.
The Government’s chaotic handling of Brexit could cause tariffs to be imposed on exported goods, along with increased paperwork, inspections, audits and so forth. It could cause bottlenecks at ports here and on the continent. Security or customs delays could cause substantial tailbacks leading up to our ports as freight lorries are forced to pool while waiting for ports in France or the Netherlands to clear any backlogs that build up there.
The impact on ports such as Dover, where 99% of through trade is to or from the EU, will be substantial. Other ports, such as those that are members of the UK Major Ports Group, have suggested that they are investing substantially in infrastructure and capacity expansion, to be prepared for any eventuality. Sadly, it seems that the Government have yet to adequately prepare for the same. Towards the end of last year, at a hearing of the Public Accounts Committee, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs told Members of Parliament that the new customs declaration system would not be fully up and running in time for Brexit and that the system had not been designed with any increased customs processing in mind.
That is precisely why Labour has repeatedly called for a new customs agreement with the EU, to ensure that our businesses can continue to export tariff-free and without friction at the border. Today’s debate should perhaps have focused on that and the Government’s complete failure to ensure that our ports are supported in the event of any change to our current trade relationship with the EU. Nevertheless, we are here to debate the reintroduction of freeports. I say reintroduction because, as many Members have alluded to and will remember, the UK has already experimented with freeports at the ports of Liverpool, Southampton, Tilbury, Sheerness and Prestwick airport. Those freeports, established while we were a member of the European Union, were freeports in the true sense of the term: a defined area outside our customs territory, where goods could enter without attracting taxes or tariffs.
If the Government are considering whether to re-establish such a model, will the Minister tell us why, under the coalition Government, it was decided in 2012 that the freeports would not continue? Are we really talking about not a freeport per se, but a free trade or free enterprise zone, where goods can be manufactured and services rendered without being subject to the ordinary tax and/or legal regimes of this country?
Ministers, including the Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), have suggested that the Government should consider adopting the American model of free trade zones, in which businesses would be given tax incentives to relocate. Although there may be evidence to demonstrate that such a model creates employment and attracts investment, very rarely is any assessment made of the extent to which those jobs and that investment are displaced, resulting in job losses and business closures elsewhere.
There is evidence around the world to suggest that such free trade zones are exploited by investors and businesses that seek to take advantage of general tax holidays and lax employment laws, while failing to produce the economic benefits promised.
Mr Simon Clarke
I thank the hon. Lady for highlighting the importance of EU trade, with which I completely agree. On displacing business from elsewhere, which is really important, I know from conversations with Ministers that that is at the heart of the Treasury’s concern to ensure that we do not just end up shifting jobs from one part of our country to another. This is about winning business from outside the UK for the UK that otherwise would not be here. I do not believe, for example, that if we had a string of freeports around our country they would take jobs away from other port areas in the UK. It would be about winning new businesses and jobs.
Judith Cummins
I will come on to the importance of defining what is a freeport. A 2011 review of special economic zones by the World Bank suggested that many such models had become white elephants, with the cost of revenue lost to the Exchequer outweighing the benefits. At the same time, The Economist reported that they create distortions in economies and that many fail, leaving a long trail of failed zones that either never got going, were poorly run or in which investors gladly took tax breaks without producing substantial employment or export earnings.
Reports have repeatedly surfaced from free enterprise or free trade zones around the world that demonstrate lax enforcement of labour laws. Polish workers have been sacked for an illegal strike against poor working conditions at a business located in a special economic zone. There are similar examples in China, Cambodia and elsewhere. The European Parliament’s director general for external policies found that often in such zones
“the governance of labour rights may differ from the rest of the country and fall below international legal standards”.
If the Government are considering such a model, will they tell us how they intend to ensure that workers’ rights are protected and enforced? Will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had with trade unions?
Serious concerns have been raised about how a combination of tax incentives and relaxed monitoring and supervision, even by competent regulators, has resulted in a reduction in finance and trade controls and enforcement, creating opportunities for money laundering and the financing of terrorism. The intergovernmental Financial Action Task Force raised precisely those concerns in the inaugural review of free trade zones in 2015. It noted that
“the same characteristics that make FTZs attractive to legitimate business also attract abuse by illicit actors”.
The Financial Action Task Force also noted that FTZs have been used in the transport and production of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Simon Clarke
I thank everyone who spoke in the debate. I particularly thank the Minister for sending out a really encouraging signal that there is serious engagement from the Government. The gauntlet is thrown down to us and the ports sector to make the proposition viable.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Anna Turley) set out a compelling case, which is close to my own heart, for why Teesport is such a great candidate to be a freeport if the initiative gets off the ground. Leaving aside what Harold Macmillan would term a little local difficulty about our positions on Brexit, I welcome the consensus that we have achieved. There is no suggestion that a freeport should, for example, weaken workers’ rights. It would be insanity as well as bad practice for us to do anything that took us down that route. This matter is about economic potential, not deregulation in that sense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) is such a doughty champion. I am so pleased that he set up the all-party group. Obviously, his area, like mine, could benefit enormously from making a go of freeports. He pointed out that the initiative is perfectly designed for northern communities that have been left behind. It is absolutely about embracing the opportunities of Brexit, as he rightly said.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) spoke. It is rare that I get the chance to praise London and the opportunities that it offers. It is true that London is a complex and diverse city. The idea that it is all Bentleys and million-pound homes in Sloane Square is not true. It is important that places like Havering get to benefit from initiatives such as the logistics hub. The hon. Member for Redcar and I are working on promoting such a bid for Teesside—nothing passes without Teesside getting a mention. Logistics hubs are a great idea and Havering seems to me to have many of the characteristics that would make it a successful location.
[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) has emerged as the foremost champion of social and economic liberalism within my intake of Conservative MPs. He rightly identifies that we need to be nimble, dynamic and fearless as we leave the European Union. If we are to do that, I think freeports are a great opportunity. I wish him luck working out how to get the sea a little bit closer to North East Derbyshire.
The hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Douglas Chapman) eloquently set out his party’s position on Brexit. He is absolutely right about the importance of EU trade. I draw him back to my point that current EU state aid rules restrict us from creating freeports in a way that would allow them to succeed. He made his own powerful case for Rosyth to form part of a freeport, were such a policy to be initiated. He is certainly right to pay tribute to the work of the UK ports sector in helping us to prepare for today’s debate.
The hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) rightly highlighted the importance of EU trade. We struck genuine cross-party consensus that this must not be an opportunity to deregulate things that are important to all of us, including hard-won advances in workers’ rights. It did seem slightly ironic that she took the Government to task over the lack of clarity on Brexit. I lose track of the exact position of the Opposition on this point, but it is fair to say that it is difficult for all parties, and we need to bear that in mind.
More broadly, I hope that Labour can find a way to make this policy a part of its platform, as it has enormous potential for many Labour constituencies. The fact that the hon. Member for Redcar is here and the fact that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Frank Field), a friend whom I admire greatly, is the co-sponsor of the debate, shows that this idea goes to the heart of regenerating places that have had a really raw deal over the last 30 years and have really struggled with the challenges of deindustrialisation. They could potentially benefit enormously from making this policy work. I certainly do not think we need to worry about her colourful suggestion about the transport of weapons of mass destruction. I promise now that Teesport will not become a centre for that—it is the only thing that I will rule out for Teesside.
I turn to the points made by the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick). It was a huge pleasure to welcome him to Skelton a few weeks ago; we had a really good visit. I know he is one of the most thoughtful and effective champions of enterprise in Government and someone who I think will go right to the very top of Government—he certainly deserves to. It is great to hear about his close engagement with the ports sector and he is right that the onus now passes to the sector to come up with workable, serious proposals. We have expanded upon the intellectual framework for why this could work and it is now about getting the granularity of detail that the Government require to make it happen.
Whatever the framework within which we choose to leave the European Union, it must allow the broadest possible powers for future enterprise. That takes me back to my point about Chequers. I really do want to see supply side benefits realised. There is a particular opportunity at a time when the Government have embraced a place-based industrial strategy to make the case for areas like the Humber and South Tees, where there are enormous brownfield sites. I appreciate there are ports that are constrained, such as Dover and Liverpool, but there are others where the potential is unlimited—as much land as is needed can be given. This is something that is exciting and it resonates.
It would be wrong of me to close without paying tribute to the work of Ben Houchen and the whole regeneration initiative, which is making a huge impact cross-party. It is getting people’s hopes up in places like South Tees. Sometimes it is not just about changing the economic reality but about changing the intellectual and emotional response to where we are now. We have had one narrative for a long time and hopefully we are starting to get into a much more enterprising and forward-looking mood in our area. This is an exciting and hugely challenging time. There will be great opportunities and pitfalls in the months and years ahead. That is what comes when one takes back control of policy. Today has crystallised the next steps that we are going to have to take in order to make freeports a serious, workable prospect for our future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the establishment of freeports in the UK.
Customs and Borders
Simon Clarke Excerpts(6 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
I am a firm supporter of the Prime Minister’s position on this question, and I will set out why.
I am clear that continued membership of the customs union would represent a breach of faith with the referendum result and with the wishes of millions of Labour voters up and down our country. It would also be a serious misjudgement, given the way it would leave our country bound by EU rules on trade but with no say on them, which would represent the worst of all possible worlds.
The only large country that has a customs union with the EU but that is not an EU member state is Turkey, but Turkey’s customs union is almost unbelievably asymmetric. The EU does not need Turkey’s consent to enter free trade agreements with any other country, and Turkey is obliged to reduce its tariffs with such countries. However, the third country with which the EU enters an FTA is under no reciprocal obligation to open its markets to Turkish exporters. In other words, Turkey has to open her markets but might reap none of the benefits. This is not an academic issue. Turkey finds herself in that situation in her trade with countries like Mexico and South Africa.
In a frank interview last summer with the BBC, the shadow Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), warned it would be a “disaster” for Britain to find itself in that situation. I agree with him, and I wish the Labour party were not now attempting to U-turn on that logic.
In a customs union, Britain would be reduced to taking whatever deal we are handed by Brussels, with no say on the outcome.
Antoinette Sandbach
My intention would not be to enter a Turkish-style agreement, and the EU has already conceded that the UK would be able to have a say, but not a veto, on future trade agreements.
Mr Clarke
In essence, not having a veto is not having control on the outcome. An agreement would be negotiated for us that we would either have to live with or reject. There is no sensible outcome we could live with over which we have no control.
It gets worse. Turkey can sign free trade agreements with other non-European Union countries only if she has the EU’s permission—we would have to get clarity on whether that would apply in this instance. I suspect Turkey only subjects herself to such a humiliating state of affairs because she continues to hold out the hope of becoming a full member of the European Union.
The state of affairs for Britain would be far worse, infinitely worse, than remaining a member state of the European Union, where we at least have a seat at the table when it comes to our trade deals.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
Has the hon. Gentleman considered that Turkey might be staying in the customs union for economic advantage? Has he thought about the economics of the situation?
Mr Clarke
I do not believe that it is to our economic advantage. Turkey has long prized EU membership as a status symbol, but I do not believe the economics add up.
Those lobbying for a customs union know that staying in the customs union without a voice at the table would be worse than being a fully signed-up member, as was made more or less explicit by the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Owen Smith) when he said that we would need to stay in the single market as well as the customs union, which goes a long way towards revealing the true motivation of many who make this argument—they see it as a stepping-stone to undoing the people’s vote to leave.
We need to remind ourselves of why the leave campaign lobbied to leave the customs union in the first place. The EU has been slow at negotiating trade deals on our behalf, not least because there are 28 members states on one side of the negotiating table. The EU’s trade talks with Japan have taken 61 months and are still awaiting ratification. By contrast, it took Switzerland 28 months to settle its deal with Japan. EU trade talks with the US have been ongoing for 64 months now, with no sign of progress, whereas the US managed to negotiate trade deals with Canada in 20 months, Australia in 14 months and South Korea in 13 months. At the time of the referendum, the EU had managed to negotiate trade agreements with only two of the UK’s 10 largest non-EU trading partners.
Not leaving the customs union would also fatally damage the prospects for the idea that, more than any other, has captured the imagination of the Teesside public since our vote to leave. A free port at Teesport, which is a project championed by Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen and me, would be an enormous boost to local industry and provide a great incentive to reshore jobs to the South Tees mayoral development corporation site. That goes directly to the point that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) made about north-east jobs. There has been enormous buy-in from local people and businesses to this idea, and people are genuinely excited about what it would mean. However, a free port will not be possible if we do not leave the customs union.
Some people try to maintain the argument that free ports are possible within the EU. The reality is that those zones that exist are glorified bonded warehouses—places where people can defer tax, duty and VAT. What Ben and I are saying is that within the Tees free port there will be the potential for significant tax and regulatory divergences, but that will be stymied if we remain in a customs union.
Outside a customs union there are other significant advantages.
Mr Grieve
How does my hon. Friend imagine that he can engage in this regulatory divergence without incurring tariffs with those countries with which we do our principal trade or the economic consequences that flow from that? I can understand the fantasy behind the picture he paints, but it simply is not the reality of what will happen if we cut ourselves off from our principal trading partners.
Mr Clarke
It is certainly not dreamland. If my hon. Friend reads the compelling paper written by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak) for the Centre for Policy Studies, he will see why it is not dreamland, why there is such ministerial buy-in and why there is so much enthusiasm from the business community in the north-east.
The additional advantages are that we can cut tariffs on products such as food, clothing and footwear. These goods happen to be where the highest tariffs are concentrated and are those on which the poorest in society spend the greatest proportion of their income.
Others have made points about Northern Ireland on which I shall not dwell at length given the shortage of time, but the chief executive of HMRC Jon Thompson told the Exiting the European Union Committee:
“We do not believe, and this has been our consistent advice to ministers, we require any infrastructure at the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland under any circumstances.”
I will leave that point there.
Britain remaining inside the customs union with the EU would be unwise, unnecessary and unacceptable to me and millions of people who voted for Brexit in good faith.
Spring Statement
Simon Clarke Excerpts(6 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hammond
I am not sure about the end of the hon. Lady’s question. Is she asking whether the Government have ruled anything out? The Government have not ruled out anything—we are still considering this issue. Of course these workers must have the pay to which they are entitled and which they should have been paid. What we are doing—the Cabinet Office is leading on this—is working with the key providers to see how best to deliver that in a way that does not have negative impacts on the provision of care.
Mr Simon Clarke (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Con)
Youth unemployment in my constituency has fallen by 55% under the Conservatives, which is fantastic news. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the last thing young people in Teesside need is a reckless borrowing binge to reverse that progress?