I have received the below answer from the Treasury to my Written Question:

Treasury has provided the following answer to your written parliamentary question (2336):

Question:
To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, what discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on fiscal plans to tackle potential supply shortages of (a) energy and (b) food. (2336)

Tabled on: 16 May 2022

Answer:
Helen Whately: Arrangements are in place to ensure security of supply of electricity and gas. We are confident that the UK’s energy security will be maintained.

The UK food supply chain is highly resilient and our food import dependency on the Eastern Europe region is very low. We do not expect any significant direct impact on overall UK food supply as a result of the conflict in Ukraine. The Government continues to keep the market situation under review through the UK Agriculture Market Monitoring Group, which monitors UK agricultural markets including price, supply, inputs, trade and recent developments. We have also increased our engagement with industry to supplement our analysis with real time intelligence.

The answer was submitted on 23 May 2022 at 09:42.

For the last 14 years the main instrument of monetary policy has been the creation of many more pounds by the Bank of England to buy up government debts. This has occurred under Labour, Coalition and Conservative governments. No opposition has ever opposed it or any part of it. The Bank has now created a massive £975bn of new money to buy bonds. This swamps the sums we normally debate around budgets.

Some MPs ignorantly say they do not challenge this because it is the actions of an independent Central Bank. If they read the documents they would discover that the Chancellor has to approve and sign off every pound so created. More importantly he is also required to take all the risk on the bonds, indemnifying the Bank of England against any losses, as the sums involved are large in relation to the size of the Bank and its capital. The fact that taxpayers are now the proud owners of £975bn of bonds liable for losses via the Treasury should you would have thought concentrate the minds of MPs and lead to debate.

Some MPs say they did not need to debate it because they agreed with the policy. Now, however, many MPs are angry about the high levels of inflation we are currently experiencing. They should re examine their past support for the money printing which is one of the reasons we now have the inflation we are experiencing. It seemed clear to me and few others last year that the Bank and Treasury were continuing with more money printing than was sensible well into the recovery. I did back the money printing in 2020 as a necessary part of the offset to the deeply damaging economic impact of  lockdowns .

Today Parliament needs to consider how it should handle these issues in future, given the problem of inflation from past Treasury/Bank monetary policy.  How much money will taxpayers lose on the bonds that have been bought? As interest rates go up, so the value of the bonds held usually goes down. Does that matter? The deal the Treasury gave the Bank means there will  be no trouble for the Bank, as in addition to the guarantees there is the promise of top up capital if ever the Bank’s free capital falls too low.

In these conditions it is difficult to see why so many MPs including the Opposition think the Bank is independent. They also need to ponder the significant power the government has when it comes time to choose a new Governor.

The MPC and the current Chancellor added £200bn to QE in March 2020, £100bn in June 2020 and £150bn in November 2020, with payments under each programme spread out over the months that followed through to end 2021.

Bernard Jenkin Chair, Liaison Committee (Commons)  12:22 pm, 15th July 2021 I beg to move, That this House supports the primary aims of the Northern Ireland Protocol of the EU Withdrawal Agreement, which are to uphold the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement in all its dimensions and to respect the integrity of the EU and UK internal markets; recognises that new infrastructure and controls at the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic must be avoided to maintain the peace in Northern Ireland and to encourage stability and trade; notes that the volume of trade between Great Britain and Northern Ireland far exceeds the trade between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland; further notes that significant provisions of the Protocol remain subject to grace periods and have not yet been applied to trade from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and that there is no evidence that this has presented any significant risk to the EU internal market; regards flexibility in the application of the Protocol as being in the mutual interests of the EU and UK, given the unique constitutional and political circumstances of Northern Ireland; regrets EU threats of legal action; notes the EU and UK have made a mutual commitment to adopt measures with a view to avoiding controls at the ports and airports of Northern Ireland to the extent possible; is conscious of the need to avoid separating the Unionist community from the rest of the UK, consistent with the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement; and also recognises that Article 13(8) of the Protocol provides for potentially superior arrangements to those currently in place. The House approved this motion with Labour supporting when Bernard and other MPs including myself proposed it. What the UK government is now proposing by way of legislation is pursuing the policy laid out in this motion. It is important to avoid bringing into effect the many additional controls between NI and GB that the EU envisages. As the motion says there is no evidence of harm being done to the EU’s single market by the failure to impose these extra controls on GB to NI trade. More importantly, as the motion stated, the Good Friday Agreement takes precedence over the Protocol and that Agreement is now visibly damaged and undermined by the EU actions over the UK’s internal market. Whilst the Protocol promised to respect our internal market the needless controls the EU has already imposed on internal GB/NI trade have done damage to our trade and more importantly have lost the support of the Unionist community for the Assembly and political process which lies at the core of the Good Friday Agreement. The government should proceed swiftly with the necessary legal measure to  restore UK internal trade. Labour would be wise to remember their support for this policy when they helped the Commons pass this motion. If they do so they help to restore cross community support for the Good Friday Agreement. Visiting US Democrats would be wise to read  both Agreements and to grasp how the Protocol is currently undermining the Good Friday Agreement thanks to the heavy handed and wrong implementation by the EU.

Here’s an idea. Take the surge in extra  tax on energy higher prices have brought, and give that money back to struggling taxpayers. The Treasury is  collecting  a mighty windfall. extra  revenue from North Sea oil and gas already paying double Corporation Tax. Some say that’s £8 bn extra so  far.  Extra  VAT on inflated home  energy bills. More tax at the petrol and diesel pumps.

This may amount to say a total £15 bn. That would mean the government could

Abolish the extra National Insurance imposed

Suspend VAT on fuel

Increase the Warm  Homes discount

Increase Universal Credit

Cut Income tax by 5% off the rate, taking it to 19%

Carry the cost of some of the renewable obligations on fuel prices for a period whilst gas prices remain elevated.

It is a bad idea to collect much more tax from producing and buying energy when the price of energy has just rocketed.

It is not the windfall tax that is so popular but the thought the money from it could be given back to customers of energy companies. the sun involved  is much smaller than the extra tax the government is already taking off us, so give that money back instead.

 

 

We need a new budget now. The current policy mix is delivering soaring prices and a nasty slowdown.

The Chancellor tells us he wants investment led growth. He says he is thinking about new tax incentives for investment this autumn. They will be less generous or no more generous than the super deduction from Corporation tax businesses currently enjoy. That way of fostering an investment lift off has predictably and visibly failed. Let me explain to the Treasury why.

When looking at an investment you do not just look at the tax position when spending money on the set up of the investment. You look at longer term cash flows when the investment has been made. The Chancellor’s planned large hike in Corporation tax makes a big hole in future net profits from any investment in buildings, plant and equipment. If it’s an investment in the oil, gas and coal we need, we find instead U.K. net zero policies drive people to import as those who want to produce here struggle for licences. If you were thinking of increasing our food output Defra will be bribing landowners to wild their land instead whilst the Business department and others will be wanting to reward the landowner for using the land for carbon offsets.  If you were thinking of investing to ease the homes shortage the Levelling Up department will be wanting you to sign up to remedial liabilities on past buildings if you are a U.K. company but not a foreign one.

I mention these three areas as inflation in energy, food and housing are central to our current woes. We need more domestic capacity in all three. So government, take the barnacles off the enterprise boat. Grant the permits, cut the taxes, place the orders. The world does not owe us a living.  Stopping the rise in Corporation tax is the bare minimum to try to rescue investment. If the Chancellor instead cut it to the new world minimum  of 15% there would be an investment surge and more business tax revenue. I will give more detail on the budget we need in future articles.

Whitehall has many talents and strengths that Ministers need to use and motivate to do their jobs. They also need to be aware that there is a kind of default mode that applies to many policies and areas that does not reflect the mood of many to make a success of Brexit and to use the freedoms it brings to help create a more prosperous and successful UK.

There are many in Whitehall who seem to regret our exit from the EU and wish to stay close to EU rules, laws and policies.  There is a readiness to take what the EU says as right and necessary and to see anything we do differently as unwise . We see this most obviously in the reluctance to sort out the Northern Ireland Protocol by failing to press on with legislation to uphold the parts of the protocol that respect our internal market and reflect the wishes of Unionists as part of the Good Friday settlement. We see it in the reluctance to challenge the EU over our residual payments to them, to push back on their aggressive stance to cross border trade and in the unwillingness to remedy bad past EU legislation. One and half years on from exit and still there has been no repeals Bill, no major changes to VAT, no regaining of our fishing industry.

There is then the similar enthusiasm for a range of other international bodies. Many in the public will be alarmed if Whitehall wants us to sign a health Treaty giving powers to the WHO over the NHS.

The major controlling idea in Whitehall apart from welcoming every form of global government over us is the priority afforded to net zero policies over almost all others. This has led to the accelerated decline of domestic energy with increasing reliance on unreliable and expensive imports. Far from cutting global CO 2 this I’ll judged response has increased world CO 2. It is leading to the wilding of the UK to reduce the amount of food we grow for ourselves at a time of worrying international shortages. It is often self defeating in its own terms, as we come to rely on foreign products for our needs which produce more CO2 globally than if we had made or grown them at home. It runs down too many U.K. industries as they propose we import more instead.

These are some of the things Ministers need to change.

Question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what happened to the beds and medical equipment from the Nightingale hospitals. (90312)

Tabled on: 09 December 2021

This question was grouped with the following question(s) for answer:

1. To ask the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, what the total cost was of setting up, running and closing the Nightingale hospitals. (90311)
   Tabled on: 09 December 2021

Answer:
Edward Argar:

Total projected funding for the Nightingale hospital programme was ring-fenced at £466 million. National Health Service providers are currently auditing the accounts for 2020/21 and the final spending outturn will be published in due course.

NHS England and NHS Improvement advise that regions were responsible for co-ordinating the redistribution of assets including beds and medical equipment from the Nightingale hospitals. Each host trust is responsible for managing a list of these assets. The remaining surplus stock has been collected and made available for national redistribution under the existing warehousing, asset tracking and logistics contracts.

The answer was submitted on 15 Dec 2021 at 14:57.

There have been too many changes of Minister under Labour, Coalition and Conservative governments. If the civil service think someone may only be in post for a year or so they can delay or impede actions the Minister wishes to take that they do not favour. Frequent changes of Minister means frequent changes of attitude and decision making in ways which may be unhelpful. Ministers are often allocated to a department without proper consultation or discussion of their skills, knowledge and interests. From the moment they arrive in office they are expected to be able to answer a range of difficult questions and make well informed decisions with no training for that role.

Ministers have to perform a variety of tasks. They are there to represent their department in government and to the country. They need to argue its corner in government debate and policy formation. They need to approve necessary actions by civil servants to administer the body of inherited policy and to enforce the inherited law in their area. They need to be the complaints department, seeking improvement and redress where things have gone wrong. They need to make judgements in difficult cases and situations which are brought to their level for decision.

They also need to remember they are elected with others to carry through a vision and a set of promises from a Manifesto. They need to be the change makers in the department where change is needed and where the case for change has been accepted by the public in an election and or made and accepted by Parliament. They may need to reallocate resources, establish new programmes, put through new laws , address new issues.

Ministers will see when they arrive that the department has a culture and a set of defining attitudes towards policy and its tasks. Some of this will be well based and the Minister needs to learn and reinforce it. Some of it will be contrary to what the Minister and government are trying to do, where the Minister should make the case for change in the department and offer leadership to correct what he or she sees as wrong or misguided. It is no defence for bad policy or decisions to say the Minister followed the official advice. It is best where the Minister knows about the matters being discussed and has past qualifications and experience that are relevant as in most other jobs. Where this is not possible a Minister should be kept in post long enough to learn the job and do it well for a bit before being moved.

There is some interest in civil service reform, both by Ministers and senior civil servants. Both can perform better, and both see that there are difficulties over some issues and in some departments. Today I wish to concentrate on how the civil service can respond to public needs and Ministerial decisions. I will do another piece on how  Ministers can give good leadership.

The recent covid crisis showed the best and the worst of what is on offer. The existing NHS medical staff and senior management provided a lot of emergency care in difficult circumstances at some risk to themselves whilst medical science caught up with the disease and developed medicines and vaccines to combat the virus. Ministers opted for new leadership outside NHS management to drive the vaccine development and purchases very successfully. The NHS took time to test and bring on stream drug treatments.

The civil service appoints a lot of generalists and then rotates them through a wide range of  very different roles, with a few emerging to the top with a general knowledge and experience of quite a lot of government. There is substantial reliance on outside consultants and advisers for technical and professional matters. An individual often has to move onwards and upwards quickly to get salary advances and to show they are the kind of talent that can rise higher.  The danger of this system is twofold. Individuals do not gain sufficient expertise or a wide enough range of contacts to do any particular ,job well given the limited time in it. No-one is responsible for much, as projects, policies and services are shaped by a succession of people and go wrong under a range of people. If a person knows they will move on soon it must affect their degree of interest in and disclosure of things that are not working well.

There is a good  case to be made for expecting people to stay for longer in posts and to back them with training and support so they become expert in their field. They should be given increments on salary scales for doing a good ,job whilst staying in post, and or promoted within the same area so the expertise is not wasted.  The civil service should contain more of the expertise it needs and should reward it.

If we take an area of weakness, large scale procurement, it would make sense for senior people involved to expect to have to stay with the contracts they have designed and signed through a meaningful period of years  of fulfilment, with possible bonuses for successful quality and cost outcomes. If it is say a 7 year project why not stay to see it to success?  Whilst of course Ministers remain publicly responsible for all that is done, well paid senior civil servants should beneath that public accountability take responsibility for all their considerable delegated powers. They need to be rewarded and praised for using them well, or corrected or disciplined for using them badly as in private business.

The attempt to divide administration of policy from design of policy led to a proliferation of Executive Agencies. Their Chief Executives are civil servants, but they have some Ministerial type powers and duties as they have a public face and can  speak for their bodies.  Where there is a cross party accepted  and largely unchanging task like issuing passports or vehicle licences there is something to be said for this approach. It needs to be sharpened so that again the CEO and senior management  is rewarded for success but held accountable for failure. The model starts to break down where policy and execution are much more entwined and the resulting quango is powerful. The NHS and the Environment Agency are differing examples of large bodies with public chief executives where Ministers are held responsible for their actions by the public. In these cases it is essential the Ministers have full access to data and an ability to influence the CEOs as their work is central to the democratic process and is often highly contentious between parties. Not everything should be in external agencies.

I  understand people’s concern about the UK signing a world Treaty on healthcare that could make running the NHS difficult or otherwise constrain good UK policy choices. There are a lot of false rumours flying around. As there is currently no draft it is  not possible to say much  on the wisdom or dangers of this particular idea.

The WHO has set up an International Negotiating Board to try to draft a binding Protocol over future responses to pandemics. The timetable is according to the WHO as below.

• The INB will host its second round of public consultation hearings on 16-17 June 2022.
• The INB will meet by 1 August 2022 to discuss and consider a working draft treaty.
• The INB will deliver a progress report to the 76th World Health Assembly in 2023.
• The INB will submit its outcome for consideration by the 77th World Health Assembly in 2024.

Those wishing to influence or oppose this development should respond to the consultation. I have already made it clear I do not favour the UK signing a Treaty but we should take good ideas from WHO and implement them as appropriate.