Exercising Brexit freedoms?

Successive Prime Ministers have not used a lot of Brexit talent on the backbenches.

I raise this now because the current administration is becoming more Remain establishment with each reshuffle. The new Justice Secretary and new Deputy PM are both from the Remain stable. The Attorney General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are also.

Today the test of Brexit resolve surrounds the EU Retained law Bill. The Prime Minister has always shown good support for this measure. It passed the Commons easily with a majority of 71. It is now stuck in the Lords where there are said to be many critics. If that is so they should be asked to complete their consideration and amendment of the Bill so the Commons can reaffirm its support and get it through, with or without use of the Parliament Act.

The Bill proposes keeping all those EU laws which are valued, where Ministers should bring forward confirmatory Parliamentary action to cement their passage into direct UK law. It  allows the EU laws to cease to have effect where they are not wanted. Some say this is too big a job for the civil service. I say they know these laws as they were usually very keen to get them adopted,. Department by Department they can help Ministers winnow out those laws that  UK Ministers opposed at the time  of their introduction or thought were unhelpful, and those laws which have been found to be unhelpful since.

My Intervention on the Sudan Ministerial Statement

My Intervention on the Opposition Day Debate on Cost of Living Increases

UK growth was not dented by Brexit.

Growth in advanced countries since the great crash and banking disasters of 2008-9 has been poor. Despite ultra low interest rates and available credit,  growth stayed down. In the last three years the work of the Bank of England, Fed and European Central Bank gave us a big inflation, to be followed by an abrupt change of policy to give us a downturn.

The IMF figures for the period 2010-22 shows the US with 24% growth over 12 years, below 2% a year, with Italy at 1% growth for whole period or zero annual rate. The UK was third at 21% after the US and Canada. The UK was better than Germany (17%), France  (14%) and Japan  (7%) as well as Italy. The UK grew the fastest of all 7 between 2020 and 2022 inclusive.  So all those who say the UK is the worst performer or who say Brexit has done us special damage need to recognise that relatively the UK has done well beating the Europeans and Japanese.

The main reason the US has been more successful is the US fostered and allowed the growth of several trillion dollar companies that pioneered the digital revolution. Europe and the UK did  not produce a Google, Apple, Amazon or Microsoft. The US university and enterprise culture proved much better able to foster and grow major innovatory corporations that captured the public mood and need, winning business away from traditional companies on this side of the Atlantic. The weight of EU  regulation, UK penalties on self employment, a low tax threshold for VAT and other incumbrances on business hindered UK growth.

We need a policy that promotes more growth in the UK. This needs to be growth in per capita income, not just growth in overall GDP. It is not a good idea to keep adding to the low paid workforce by inviting in more and more economic migrants. The labour shortages should send a signal to employers to spend more on technology and to employ better paid more highly skilled people. So called cheap labour turns out to be very dear for taxpayers, with inflated needs for social housing, extra school places, more medical capacity and expanded utility provision. To foster and allow more growth we need urgent tax changes for the self employed, small business and large companies. It was Ireland that scooped the pool of digital investment this side of the Atlantic, by the simple expedient of having the ultra low business tax rate of 12.5%. That is exactly what the Uk should do, to join the digital revolution more wholeheartedly and to share more of the US digital led success.

Answer to my written Parliamentary question on Windsor Framework

This is a  better attempt to answer the outstanding questions over what reductions in EU law have been made for NI under the new Agreement. It appears that most of the items items mentioned are only disapplied for green lane imports, whereas the issue is the application of laws to anything made and sold in Northern Ireland. There seems to have been little progress in reducing the EU legal burden on NI.

 

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (180627):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, with reference to The Windsor Framework: a new way forward, published in February 2023, if he will publish specific details of the 1,700 pages of EU law that will be disapplied under the Windsor Agreement. (180627)

Tabled on: 14 April 2023

Answer:
Leo Docherty:

The UK Government is committed to taking the necessary steps to uphold the UK’s international obligations, including the Withdrawal Agreement and the Windsor Framework, as set out in the previous answer. As also set out, all of the rules disapplied are set out in the legal texts published as part of the Windsor Framework. By the EU’s own calculations, less than 3 percent of EU rules apply – with those that remain only applying to secure maximum free trade and market access for Northern Ireland firms. It should also be recognised that this is not a straightforward list, as some of those rules will be applied in part for the red lane but not applied in the green lane, for example. But, for example:

· Annex 1 of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) legal text shows that 67 rules on food and drink do not apply in the green lane – covering issues like marketing standards, food supplements and additives, and the production of organic products. It also disapplies the certification requirements in the EU Official Controls Regulation, as well as the prohibitions on various movements set out therein.

· Requirements in the Union Customs Code (UCC) for rules of origin certificates, tariffs, and commodity codes for each movement do not apply for internal UK trade; nor are there any requirements for customs declarations for consumer parcels, which are classified automatically as “not at risk”. And we have secured unfettered access by removing any need for export declarations or equivalent information for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain as would otherwise have been set out in the UCC.

· In a similar vein, and as noted previously, the requirements in the VAT Directive which prevented the zero-rating of energy-saving materials has been disapplied, enabling the changes we brought forward in Parliament this week; as have limits on alcohol duty structures in EU rules harmonising excise duty structures.

· And for medicines we have disapplied any role for the European Medicines Agency in authorising medicines for the UK market, as otherwise set out in EU rules on the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products; and removed packaging any other requirements in the Falsified Medicines Directive.

These changes have safeguarded Northern Ireland’s place in the Union and our internal market, while continuing to support Northern Ireland’s businesses by providing them access to the whole UK market as well as the EU market.

The answer was submitted on 24 Apr 2023 at 17:14.

Answer to my written Parliamentary question on the Windsor Framework

This is an odd answer. It turns out 3% was an EU calculation, not a UK government one. There is still no back up or workings shown to tell us how this percentage was calculated.

 

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (180625):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, on what basis his Department calculated that only three per cent of EU law would apply to Northern Ireland under the Windsor Agreement. (180625)

Tabled on: 14 April 2023

Answer:
Leo Docherty:

The EU’s calculation is that less than 3% of EU law is applicable in Northern Ireland.

The answer was submitted on 24 Apr 2023 at 17:09.

Answers to my written Parliamentary questions on carbon capture

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (180629):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, whether his Department plans to fund carbon capture and storage projects from (a) tax revenue, (b) levies, (c) charges on energy customers and (d) other sources. (180629)

Tabled on: 14 April 2023

Answer:
Graham Stuart:

The £20bn announced in the 15 March Budget will come from levy and Exchequer sources. The precise mix will be confirmed once negotiations are complete. The Government expects it to encourage billions of pounds of additional private capital as private partners also commit to the programme, creating jobs and bringing investment to the UK’s industrial heartlands.

The answer was submitted on 24 Apr 2023 at 16:27.

Answers to my written Parliamentary Questions on carbon capture

Department for Energy Security and Net Zero provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (180628):

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, with reference to the Written Statement of 30 March 2023, HCWS690 on Powering up Britain, how the carbon capture and storage outlined in that Statement will be funded. (180628)

Tabled on: 14 April 2023

Answer:
Graham Stuart:

The £20bn announced will come from levy and exchequer sources. The Government expects it to encourage billions of pounds of additional private capital as private partners also commit to the programme, creating jobs and bringing investment to the UK’s industrial heartlands.

The answer was submitted on 24 Apr 2023 at 16:27.

Government and business management

When I was first appointed a Minister I had to resign that day from Chairman of a substantial quoted industrial group of companies. The contrast between managing the one and other was extreme.

As company chairman I was conscious that I had the power to hire and fire, to reward and to promote anyone in the organisation. I was  careful in anything I said to distinguish between statements of policy and company values on the one hand, and the many comments, questions and suggestions I needed to make to explore options,  mentor senior managers and encourage others to take decisions. There was plenty of power to get change, with a team  willing to implement when I did make decisions. The danger was someone would take an offhand or provisional  remark and see it as law for the company.

As a new Minister who had the good fortune to take on a role I understood and had experience in I discovered my decisions and statements of policy and values were often in the early days  taken as some kind of invitation to a debate or seminar. I always tried to be courteous to my officials. I  recognised that I had  no power to sack or promote  most of them and anyway as in business I thought please and thank you are undervalued ways of getting things done. I saw that now I was in office I also needed to be in power. I needed to get the machine to see I wanted change in how we did things and change would produce better results.

Some  thought they could get away with simply ignoring an instruction. I needed to follow up and require data to see implementation. Other times they would tell me what I wanted to do was not government policy. I would explain that I was making it government policy. As a junior Minister I had of course always checked through informal discussions with the Secretary of State that he was happy for me to do that or that I had the delegated power. Sometimes officials would then seek to force me to take a policy I thought was clearly within my power to consultation with other departments, probably hoping that in the write round I might be prevented.

The first thing I always did as a new Minister in a department was to exercise the one Ministerial freedom to choose my own Private Secretary from those available from civil service sources. In each case I found an excellent person who worked well with me and  helped me get my proposals through the machinery of government. When I was concerned about the quality of an area of the work and the vulnerability of the first department I was in I took the matter privately to the Permanent Secretary. I explained the defects as I saw them, showed how if I was right and the  faults  caused problems there would be serious implications for him in his role as Accounting Officer for the Department as well as for me as Minister. He then made his own decision to change and strengthen personnel in the area concerned.

As a Minister I never felt short of staff or money to do what needed doing. It was always difficult to get government to close down old initiatives, discontinue out of date policies and free the resources for something else. There was a wish for new additional  money and staff for everything. There was a reluctance to conduct running audits of effectiveness and value for money. There was an unwillingness to make named senior officials responsible for specified programmes or policy implementation in the way I was used to doing  in business. Officials were changed far too often, undermining their ability to advise based on experience and the development of a wide range of contacts in their area of work.

Happy St George’s Day

England is so often the country not allowed to speak its name. It was the country the EU did not want on its maps. It is the country the European  establishment and Opposition parties here at home wish to break up into regions.

It is also the country that did so much to pioneer democratic government, that opened up free trade, that has gone in the past to rescue Europe from autocrats invading countries to fashion  a European empire in their own image. Three times in the last 500 years we had to resist invasion of ourselves and others, from Spain, France then Germany. Three times we allied with the forces of national self determination and greater freedom, sacrificing lives and treasure for victory. Twice we fought as a United Kingdom.

England has offered the world the language of Shakespeare and the Industrial Revolution, great services  and many innovations. We should celebrate today in the knowledge that world is freer and more prosperous for the exertions  of our ancestors.