Let us remind Ministers that in U.K. government the civil service provides continuity. They will carry on energetically implementing past policies until the Cabinet or a Minister with the authority tells them policy is changing. It is the job of Ministers to propose new directions, argue them through against civil service objections and sell them to Parliament and the public.

In a few areas Ministers have seized the initiative and changed policy from the overarching EU laws and decisions which came to dominate most areas in recent years. The notable decision to opt out of the EU approach to vaccine development an£ procurement shows what can be done. Yet in all too many other cases Ministers are still to change and improve the EU approach which governs.

The Treasury for example has still not removed VAT from a range of items where the U.K. thought it wrong impose the tax. Why is there still VAT on boiler controls, heat pumps, drought excluder and insulation for starters? Why are we still reporting under the debt and deficit rules of Maastricht? Can’t we have a pro growth anti inflation framework of our own to replace Maastricht austerity rules?

At DEFRA we still await details of how the U.K. is going to rebuild its fishing fleets and take control of our fish, catching sustainable quantities and landing them in the U.K. At Business there is no sign of a better regulation Bill to slim and improve the vast annals of EU legislation, some of which the U.K. opposed or wished to improve when first drafted. Pledging high standards is good, but improving the way they are defined and enforced would also be good. At the FCO There is little riposte to the abuses of trade between the EU and ourselves, particularly on the island of Ireland. We still do not have new procurement rules, nor a better self reliant energy policy.

We did not leave the EU to preserve all its legislative works from the outside. We left to make things better. Some Ministers need to alert officials to the huge opportunities which Brexit can bring.

The immediate reason why Honda is closing its Swindon car assembly plant is the lack of demand for its cars throughout Europe. The company’s sales in Europe peaked in 2007 at 313,000 and is now under half that. Contrary to referendum rumours their closure has nothing to do with Brexit. They are also ceasing production in Turkey and do not want any production in Europe for the future.

The second reason is the EU/Japan trade deal. The prospective ending of 10% tariffs on imported cars from outside the EU will make Japanese produced Hondas in future 10% cheaper. Why not make them in Japan and get greater economies of scale from manufacturing there where they need output for the home market as well?

Which brings me to the third reason. Honda needs to launch new models that are all electric for the market of the future. This requires a complete rethink on how you make cars and where you make them. Honda will put its battery capacity into Japan and get the economies of scale there for the European market production at the same time.

This Honda story is a warning to the UK and to other established centres of car production in Europe. The transformation of the car means new plant and new equipment and may well mean a different pattern of industrial location as a result. Brexit was never a threat to the UK car industry. Electrification is. For the UK to keep its current level of capacity and to grow its industry it needs to take bigger strides to invest in and control the raw materials, component production and assembly of the electric cars of the future given the determination of the USA, EU and UK governments to force this transition. Until enough people freely buy electric cars this means the industry investing in advance of demand and government offering suitable assistance to help make the new products more affordable and acceptable to customers.

Meanwhile the Honda factory will become warehouse space. Let’s hope it will not just be filled with more imports.

President Biden’s more diplomatic approach towards the EU comes at a price. Last week the USA persuaded the EU to put its name to sanctions against Chinese officials and to make a statement condemning China’s treatment of the Uighur Muslims. The EU had been negotiating an Investment and Trade Agreement with China, and had been careful not to criticise China’s approach to human rights. The 5 Eyes grouping of the USA, UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand had been more outspoken and Australia had borne the brunt of Chinese denials, rebuttals and complaints.
The US Secretary of State also made it crystal clear that the USA remains implacably opposed to the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline from Russia to Germany, despite it being almost finished. He stated it was a “bad idea” for the EU a well as for her western allies. He added to Trump’s strategic criticisms the added criticism that the project gets in the way of EU climate change objectives as well, a new US sensitivity which the EU is meant to share.
The USA under Biden has more time for allies, but expects them to rally round a new aggression towards both China and Russia. President Biden dislikes these states. He alleges they undertake state sponsored cyber disruption, interfere in western elections, fail to uphold human rights for all and are building up their military power whilst creating a series of client states. The German model of doing plenty of business with Russia and China is being put under some strain. For her part China is testing out both Biden’s power and the cohesiveness of the western alliance. The trends are clearly towards a US led system and country grouping, and a Chinese led one. Biden’s team are trying a tough public stance on political matters, whilst trying diplomacy to settle some of the trade issues with China in private.
I would be interested in your comments as well on where the UK should now position its foreign policy towards China.

Yesterday I was one of a few MPs who voted against a six month extension to the powers of the Coronavirus Act. I did so because I wish to hold the government to its promise of an end to lock down this June. I did so because I think the powers are too sweeping. We need to restore our liberties and let people make judgements for themselves about their conduct and their health risks. I did so because I do not think government can protect us from all harms, and has to avoid taking so much action against one threat that it leaves us vulnerable to other threats.

I and others will continue to question and to seek to persuade the government to remove this raft of restrictive measures. Without the Official Opposition also opposing we lack the votes to change things, but we have voices and public support which we need to represent.

I reproduce below a letter sent by the Home Secretary to all MPs and peers, as I thought it best you read the government’s statement and respond to their proposals:

New Plan for Immigration

We have today published the New Plan for Immigration – our landmark programme to deliver the first comprehensive overhaul of the asylum system in decades.

UK asylum claims increased by 21% to almost 36,000 in 2019 – the highest number since the 2015/16 European ’migration crisis’. Small boat arrivals to the UK reached record levels with 8,500 illegal arrivals last year.

At the same time, our ability to remove individuals with no right to remain in the UK is being undermined by repeated legal claims designed to impede removal action, often strung out over a period of many years. The vast majority of last-minute claims designed to prevent removal are subsequently found by the courts to have no merit. Shockingly, there are around 45,000 failed asylum seekers who have not left the UK and over 10,000 Foreign National Offenders – and yet there were just 7,000 enforced returns in 2019.

All of this impacts our ability to help those in genuine need by taking up scarce resources and wasting valuable judicial capacity.

We have already reformed our legal immigration system by ending free movement and introducing a new points-based immigration system. This plan is the next step in taking back control of our borders by tackling illegal immigration.

Our New Plan for Immigration has three main objectives:

1. To increase the fairness and efficiency of our system so that we can better protect and support those in genuine need of asylum;
2. To deter and prevent illegal entry into the UK, thereby breaking the business model of the criminal trafficking networks and protecting the lives of those that they endanger; and
3. To remove more easily from the UK those with no right to be here.

At the heart of this plan is the principle of fairness. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers.

For the first time, how someone enters the UK will impact on how their claim progresses and on their status in the UK if that claim is successful. As we clamp down on illegal immigration and abuse of the system, we will also streamline the asylum framework to prevent repeat claims which frustrate removal, including of dangerous Foreign National Offenders.

We will increase prison sentences for those illegally entering the UK, introduce life sentences for facilitation of illegal entry, give Border Force additional powers, strengthen age assessments and introduce a more robust statutory definition of “well-founded fear of persecution” for asylum purposes.

At the same time, we will enhance our reputation as Global Britain, strengthening our safe and legal routes for refugees and fixing historic anomalies in British Nationality law.

The proposals are fully compliant with our international obligations, including the European Convention on Human Rights, the Refugee Convention and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.

These reforms are explained in more detail in the policy statement, which we have published today. To inform the proposals set out and ensure we can deliver effective change across the system, we have also launched a public consultation and a wide-reaching engagement process. We will use this opportunity to listen to a wide range of views from stakeholders and sectors as well as members of the public, followed by legislation at the earliest opportunity.

You can find the policy statement and consultation portal at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/new-plan-for-immigration.

I look forward to hearing your views on our New Plan for Immigration, and hope that you will strongly encourage your constituents to take part in the public consultation so that the voice of the public is heard.

The European continent remains the centre of the pandemic storm. As Italy, Germany and France extend their lockdowns and discourage movement outside the home at Easter it is time to set out some of the facts and figures on what has happened so far.

Official figures are produced and updated daily for the worldometer site. They are the best we have, though they are of course influenced by how much testing is carried out in each country to identify the disease, and how doctors fill in death certificates for people suffering from a variety of conditions as well as CV 19. These figures show that the five worst countries for numbers of cases and the five worst countries for acknowledged CV 19 deaths are all continental European. The best countries with fewest deaths and case numbers are likely to be in Asia.

Deaths per million

Gibraltar 2791
Czechia (EU) 2336
San Marino 2325
Belgium (EU) 1955
Hungary (EU) 1940

Cases per million

Andorra 149249
Montenegro 139523
Czechia (EU) 137600
San Marino 129123
Gibraltar 126766

The figures reveal a number of divergencies. Amongst these countries with the worst case and death numbers the death rate measured as deaths in proportion to reported cases varies from as high as nearly 3.2% in Hungary to a little under 1% in Andorra. Does this tell us anything about different treatments, or about death certificate definitions or about the ages of the people catching the virus? Most of these badly affected countries did introduce lockdowns and test and trace systems but still suffered greatly.

The Panorama programme on Monday sought to show that Korea got it right with a strong test and trace system, whilst arguing the Sweden got it wrong by being too relaxed in the first wave of the disease. The Swedish numbers are not out of line with other large EU countries that did go in for longer and earlier lockdowns. Korea’s performance is good but so is the performance of many other Asian countries. We need to study a range of possibilities before leaping to policy conclusions. Could it be that past Asian flu varieties gave Asians more natural immunity or ability to fight the virus? Is it that those Asian countries which did go for test, trace and isolate got more compliance from their populations than Europe did? Do diet and vitamins C and D play any part?

There are lots of facts and figures in circulation, but they need careful study to understand them and their defects before rushing to conclusions about what worked. High urban concentrations of people makes virus passage more likely, and elderly populations suffered the more serious versions of the disease in much larger numbers than younger populations. The latest news from the USA showing in their tests that the Astra Zeneca vaccine is highly effective at stopping serious case and deaths means the Uk hospital admission and death rates should continue to fall as they have been doing as most of the at risk people have now been vaccinated.

The UK economy has been steered for twenty years by the Maastricht requirements. The UK has sought to keep state debt down to 60% or to get it moving towards that total, and to keep the budget deficit down to below 3% of GDP. The inherited targets are to record state borrowing below 2% of GDP this year and to see net debt declining as a percentage of GDP. Overall borrowing should be at or below zero by 2025-6. These targets of course were blown away by the measures to tackle the pandemic.

The government needs to consider new rules. Of course it needs to control public spending and taxation to affordable levels. Maybe it should go over to a target of not normally allowing borrowing for current spending, but allow borrowing for capital spending. That capital spending should continue to need a value for money and rate of return test ,preferably better estimated and policed than prior capital projects have often been.

I dislike the Maastricht rules for a variety of reasons. Now most advanced countries are borrowing around 100% of GDP the idea that anytime soon can see them back to 60% is silly. The usually automatic 3% running deficit control can cause austerity or undesirable tax rises and cuts. I have no wish to advise the EU on what to do about their rules, and understand that they are trying to avoid the free rider problem. When countries share a currency with a common official interest rate a country which had borrowed too much could seek to take advantage of the better credit rating of leading members of the zone and carry on borrowing excessively. The fact that the criteria are recorded in the Treaties makes changing them very problematic.

For the UK we now need rules which keep our finances in good order and take advantage of a good credit rating and low rates to allow productive investment. The Maastricht figures do not adjust the state debt figures for all that debt now owned by the Bank of England as agents of the Treasury which also seems strange.

One of the big visual differences when I was a visiting Minister in foreign lands was the usual universal presence of their national flags in the Ministerial offices and meeting rooms, with nothing similar at home. Here we had the odd battle about where and when the EU flag would be shown, and we had the relentless use of the EU flag on every project which had received however modest a sum of our money routed back to us via the EU. When Ministers asked that the display should also have the Union flag on it with acknowledgement of the usually larger sums of UK direct taxpayer money they were told that was against EU rules or given some other reason why the UK flag could not be shown.

The decision of today’s Ministers to show the flag for their presentations and in their offices is merely bringing the UK into line with most other countries of the world. It also brings them into line with EU practice with universal use of the EU flag. It is curious that some in the BBC and their friends think it cause for merriment that government should be proud of our country and wish to display one of its known symbols.It is one thing to see a joke on twitter showing a picture of a man in a Union flag suit, with Union flag glasses and hat with the caption “Interview with a government Minister” but another to see mainstream BBC news programmes trying to become comedy shows at the expense of normal government practice to fly the flag. I have never heard them make fun of the many foreign interviewees who sit with their flag in their office, from US senators to Prime Ministers and Presidents of many countries.

It is all part of the strange mood of some in this country that seeks to denigrate who we are, what we stand for and what our ancestors did. Like all great countries that have contributed to human development there have been bad chapters to our story. There have been many more fine chapters, from saving Europe from dictators on several occasions to abolishing the slave trade to pioneering the industrial revolution. The fact that so many people wish to come to live and work in our country shows many abroad rate us highly. One of the most touching moments when I was a Minister came when I made an early visit to what had been Soviet eastern Europe. A lady stepped out when the official car with a small Union flag was stopped at lights to pay her respects to the flag. To her it symbolised freedom. She remembered the UK’s role in liberating Europe from tyranny.

I duly filled in my Census to comply with the law and ordered the email receipt to be able to prove it. As we now live in a snooper state where government keeps so many records about us it is difficult to fathom why they need to conduct a census.

They know who I am , where I live, where I work and all the details I supplied for my National Insurance number, Passport and driving licence. They have Income tax records, National Insurance records, residence records for Council Tax, health records through the NHS ,a birth, marriage and divorce record. So why do they need to know again who I am, where I live, what my general state of health is, what job I do and what my marital status is despite knowing all this already? They also wanted to know a few of the qualifications I hold, all known to the Examining Boards and Universities which are part of a government guided educational system.

They might argue that the point of the Census is to catch up with a minority who have not duly complied with all the form filling needed by everyone from the Passport office to the Council Tax desk. I fear that if people are housing illegal migrants or covering for people dodging Income Tax and national Insurance they are unlikely to blow their cover by providing honest answers to the census form.

They might also argue it helps them plan future services and policies. If that is the purpose then it would need to be more precise and detailed than the form they provided. Let’s take the possible use of census data for a skills audit and future skills policy. The form did not allow someone to explain what professional qualifications they might have, made no distinction between the three main levels of degree to encompass research oriented doctorates as opposed to first degrees, and did not press home general enquiries about apprenticeships to discover which areas were best served. Asking people to make a general assessment of their health is hardly sufficient evidence to plan NHS capacity. The GPS know much more about their patients. The multiple questions about identity and background were more detailed than some other areas.

Of course good government needs good data. Instead of spending money on another general survey the government should clean up and use the huge quantities of data it already holds. Why not start by reconciling National Insurance numbers with employee and Income Tax records? Why have more NI numbers been issued than there are meant to be employees? Why not use the substantial NHS data held on all using the service to model future patterns of service need and capacity better? Why not improve a system of patient records with non UK users receiving bills? Why not ask for consolidated data from Examining Boards and Universities to improve national data over skills and education if they think there are holes in their current knowledge?

It is even more bizarre that the census will not take place in Scotland when on its own logic it needs to be U.K. wide.

I hope this is the last general Census we face. On the general topic of population numbers and migration what we want is a reliable total available monthly, with good systems and border controls to assure us that the numbers are accurate. All those welcome to come legally should be included in the moving totals as permits are issued on arrival, with effective controls against illegals. For the working age population it should be one person, one NI number.

As expected the U.K. state borrowings for February and for the year to date came in well below the official forecasts of the OPBR in November, and probably below the sharply revised down Budget forecast. The Budget said £354bn for the year. The first eleven months totalled £278bn. Even allowing for some possible losses on government loans to business it seems unlikely they will borrow £76bn in March. Tax revenues were little down despite the obvious hit to VAT, Business rates and other activity related taxes thanks to CV 19 restrictions. Spending was well up, but much of that was the extra costs of CV 19 tests and vaccines, furlough and the large losses on a little used public transport system. Practically all the extra borrowing was matched by Bank of England buying of government debt, leaving the state without an unmanageable interest burden or repayment schedule. Indeed, interest charges as a percentage of spending and of GDP went down last year. Rolling over debt as governments do is serving to lower the average interest rate on the debt as today’s rates are below the historic rates incurred on earlier borrowing.

This all means I stick by my view that a one off surge in borrowing to carry the special costs of the pandemic and the economic damage lock down brings is affordable. I also stick to my view that we need to get back to work soon. Recovery will bring the deficit tumbling down as pandemic related spending falls away as tax revenues on business and VAT on consumer services pick up. The government does need to review its spending priorities and avoid wasteful spending. Any sense that there is plenty of money and that borrowing is almost without cost is an unhealthy one ,encouraging bad or needless spending and removing pressures to improve efficiency and quality and to root out unnecessary costs.

The review of spending should encompass an early set of decisions over how large a railway and bus service network we need post pandemic. How will patterns of travel demand shift? Will the post pandemic world solve the expensive peaking problem for buses and trains by removing much of the bulge in demand at peaks which requires much more expensive capacity than a more balanced pattern of travel demand? As the government seeks its infrastructure revolution it should look for more private finance both to cut public borrowing needs and to provide a stronger market test on the wisdom of each investment. I remember as Margaret Thatcher’s adviser facing strong lobbies within and outside government for the taxpayer to pay for the Uk share of the Channel tunnel. The PM agreed we should insist on private capital which we did. This turned out to be a wise move as the project did go bankrupt and needed refinancing, but the taxpayer was spared the costs. The proposals I have put forward to make more use of government purchasing to buy products and services made in the Uk will also cut the deficit. Of course there must be competition with a choice of suppliers wherever possible to ensure a fair price for the taxpayer. Everything bought by the government which is made in the UK means more tax revenue from the incomes and profits made on the work, and less public spending as more people will have decent jobs.