Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 26th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue of HGVs. As he acknowledges, last week the Government announced the four winning projects of the £200 million zero-emission HGV and infrastructure competition, which will roll out 370 zero-emission HGVs and around 57 refuelling and electric charging sites. This is part of a much broader strategy, which is about developing different fuel alternatives. The technology continues to change very rapidly. We have already heard some fascinating news about the development of solid-state batteries, and the Government are tracking and following all these developments closely.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

I am still astonished at the Secretary of State’s claims that the English EV charging network is on track—absolutely no one thinks that in this country.

Pushing back the date for the ban on petrol and diesel cars by five years, combined with removing what was already one of Europe’s worst EV purchase incentive schemes, means that this Government are sending all the wrong signals to consumers. Mike Hawes of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders said that consumers required

“a clear, consistent message, attractive incentives and charging infrastructure that gives confidence rather than anxiety. Confusion and uncertainty will only hold them back.”

I have no doubt that this decision was thoroughly assessed, so can the Minister tell us how many extra millions of tonnes of carbon will be emitted due to this Government’s back-pedalling on net zero?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

We are respectful of decisions made locally by local authorities, but he is absolutely right that, as I said, we are seeking to promote choice. That approach does mean that where people want to use cars, they will be perfectly able to do so, and where they want to use active travel, with all its personal and environmental benefits, they can do that as well.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

One of the most effective ways to increase active travel uptake is to improve road safety, but progress in this area has stagnated: the last Labour Government cut road fatalities by almost 50%, compared with a mere 8% reduction under this Conservative Government. Back in 2021, Ministers promised a new road safety strategic framework, but two years and two Secretaries of State later all we have been told is that it will be published in due course. Meanwhile, countless people remain hesitant to embrace active travel due to safety concerns. Will the Minister move beyond the soundbites and provide some much needed clarity on when the strategy will finally see the light of day?

[Jesse Norman]

We take safety extremely seriously and have done a lot of work on this issue over the years. The whole point of having dedicated active travel infrastructure on the scale that it is being rolled out at the moment is to segregate and improve safety for those using active travel. I am sure that the hon. Lady will welcome the excellent work done on connected and autonomous vehicles, because they offer a potentially revolutionary improvement in safety over time.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

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

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a very wide range of information about potential costs and budgets is already in the public domain from the Department across a very wide range of modes. On electric vehicles, we have just consulted on regulations on the zero-emission vehicle mandate, and £6 billion of new private investment is being scheduled on the basis of those projections. That will transform our charging infrastructure, and we should all welcome it.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The climate breakdown data coming in from around the planet at the moment is truly terrifying, so decarbonising transport is vital if we are to meet our climate change commitments. Will the Minister pledge to continue the work laid out just four years ago in the Maritime 2050 strategy, as recommended by the Transport Committee?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 8th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that active travel—cycling, walking and wheeling—is probably the single biggest health intervention a human being can make in their lives as a choice of habit. She is right to highlight the importance of supporting it, as the Government have—more so than any previous Government. There are a range of pots, including city region sustainable transport settlements, the road investment strategy 2 and levelling-up fund moneys, into which authorities can bid. Many have done so and will continue to do so highly successfully. That provides a continuing opportunity for them to benefit from these levels of increased funding.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

May I associate myself with the condolences that have been sent to those in India?

In 2021, Ministers set themselves four targets to measure progress in active travel uptake. Three years on, how many of these targets are they confident of meeting? I can tell Members that it is not a single one, according to the Government’s own assessment revealed by the National Audit Office yesterday. The NAO report also uncovered a staggering cut to active travel funding of £166 million, which, by the Government’s own workings, would cost the taxpayer more than £700 million in the long run. Will the Minister finally come clean and confirm whether he will be slashing this vital funding by 60% next year, too—yes or no?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

Yes.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the SNP spokesperson.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 20th April 2023 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend for that; he has been a great champion of this cause. I absolutely join him in praising Joe Skinner. Let me also praise Cameron Wood in my constituency, who has been equally hard-working in pressing the case for the improvement of disabled access. I know that my hon. Friend has already met the buses Minister, whom I know is keen to get up to Burnley—I would be very supportive of that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I must help Members from all parts of the House. Topical questions must be short and sweet—quick answers, quick questions. Minister, please show us an example.

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

The Government are spending £3 billion on this area over the current spending period. Active Travel England is making an enormous difference to the quality of schemes throughout England. Significant amounts of money are going in through the levelling-up fund and through City Region Sustainable Transport Settlements and other schemes, so we believe that we are on track to meet our targets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Go on, Minister.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is great to see you in such robust form this morning, if I may say so.

A technical consultation on the zero-emission vehicle mandate design’s features was held between April and June of last year. Responses to that consultation are currently being analysed, and the Government will publish their response, alongside a final consultation on the full regulatory proposal, and an accompanying cost-benefit analysis, in the near future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the Government’s plan is for more than 300,000 charge points to be in place by then. That will be led largely by the private sector, and we meet regularly with all the charge point operators. Their plans are escalating and will be massively supported and benefited by the zero-emission vehicle mandate. With that, and technological advances, we anticipate that there will be ample opportunity for people in rural areas to use electric vehicles.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

Last year, UK car production slumped to a 66-year low. The covid pandemic, supply chain shortages, and chaos at Dover have left this key industry fighting for survival. Manufacturers are crying out for a shred of certainty, but far from supporting them and the 150,000 workers they employ, this Government are leaving them in a state of limbo. With less than a year to go before it takes effect, why is the Minister still keeping the design of the zero-emission vehicle mandate a well-guarded secret? When can manufacturers expect finally to get some clarity from the Government to allow them to plan for the future?

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady wildly overstates the issue with regard to electric vehicles. In 2022, we had the second largest market across Europe for electric vehicles, which demonstrates the level of energy and support we are giving the industry, including £2 billion of public money. We consult closely with both large car manufacturers and small manufacturers, who have quite different interests in many different ways. They will be quite comfortable with this important mandate when it comes out, and they will be because we have consulted extensively on it with them over the past two years.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Although we support a zero-emission vehicle mandate to accelerate the switch to zero-emission driving, the Government need to get a grip on it. Businesses—be they manufacturers, dealerships or fleet purchasers—cannot plan, and consumers are in the dark. That chimes with the overall approach to zero-emission driving, with just over 7,000 EV charging installations last year when 33,000 are required annually to meet the 300,000 target. Will we hear more about the mandate, the charger network expansion and equalising the VAT levied on home charging versus street charging in the upcoming Budget?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

The hon. Lady will be aware that there have been noise-related restrictions on major airports including Heathrow for many years and, more recently, noise maps and noise action plans at Heathrow. Of course, we recognise the seriousness of this issue. It is worth saying that technology is already making a significant difference—new aircraft models make 30% to 50% less noise on take-off and landing—but we intend to consult later this year on proposals for the next night-flight regime, beginning in October 2025.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State made no commitment on the production of sustainable aviation fuel in the UK at a recent airports conference. This week, the Minister for aviation in the other place said at a pilots reception that airspace modernisation was stuck in the muck. The Government’s Jet Zero Council has achieved exactly what it said on the tin: zero. Labour has a plan for a cleaner, greener future. Get your finger out, Secretary of State!

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his report and the work he is doing as the new Chair of the Transport Committee. We are aware of the calls for CfDs. He may have seen the report published by Philip New on this issue. We are already working on not merely the mandate but a clearing house to support testing and certification. Of course, we will continue to look at the question of CfDs, but the mandate and the work we are doing towards that remains the Government policy, and rightly so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)]

Decarbonising aviation is difficult, and no one would say otherwise, but there are quick wins to reduce carbon, such as airspace modernisation, which is likely to cost under £30 million, and sustainable aviation fuels, which will be the bridge fuel until future forms of propulsion are introduced. The Government have provided some funding for SAF plants in England and Wales, but the support is dwarfed by support offered elsewhere. Without a CfD model in place to support SAFs, the Government will not get their five plants operating by their target date, and they are nowhere near their long-term targets for SAF use, are they?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 19th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the question. I myself have not recently spoken to the infrastructure board in Northern Ireland, but I shall make a point of doing so in the near future.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

This week, I and colleagues hosted leading figures from across the car industry. They are desperate for the UK to lead the world in electric vehicles, but they are banging their head against the wall at the state of the charging infrastructure. In 2019, there were 33 electric vehicles per rapid charger; today there are almost 90 vehicles per charger. Given how critical the charging network is to confidence in the EV market, why on earth are there yet more delays to the botched roll-out of the rapid charging fund? Will the Minister consider using binding targets to speed up the roll-out?

Chinese Consul General: Manchester Protest

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 20th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his further remarks. We should be absolutely clear that participating in an assault, if that is what is determined to have happened, is completely outside the expectations of our rule of law. If such a thing had taken place in front of the British consulate in Shanghai—that question was raised in the House only two days ago—we would, of course, refer the matter to the local policing authorities, as we would have expected in this case. I take his point, which he makes very strongly.

My right hon. Friend is also right to insist, as he insisted during Tuesday’s urgent question, that the diplomatic channel and the legal channel are distinct. I have seen the footage he describes, and I think it looks very black and very damning, but we are going through a process and we need to make a factual determination. Once that is done, and if the situation is found to be as we fear—that is to say there has been a criminal offence of some kind—diplomatic consequences will follow.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Minister, Catherine West.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing this urgent question, for yesterday’s interview with Mr Chan and for his work on this matter.

This is yet another complete failure by the Government. Instead of making a statement to this House, which would be the normal way of carrying on, Members have had to secure a second urgent question. What is more concerning is the outrageous admission of the Chinese consul general that he did, in fact, assault Hong Kong democracy protesters in Manchester, which he described as his duty.

The Government’s handling of this issue has been a complete mess. The Minister will know that Labour called for the Chinese ambassador to be summoned so that an explanation could be demanded, but a Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office statement confirmed that, in a stunning abdication of the Government’s duties, a civil servant held the meeting with Minister Yang, rather than the Foreign Secretary or a responsible Minister. Although I have the upmost confidence in the abilities of FCDO officials to fulfil their responsibilities, there are moments in foreign policy when only an elected Minister will do. Sadly, it appears that what this chaotic Government have unleashed upon the country through their failed economic agenda is now hampering Ministers’ ability to stand up for the most basic rights we hold dear.

The Minister has the chance to send a clear message not only to the Chinese Government, but to the Government in Myanmar and any other country that might have a repressive regime and where refugees fear for their safety in this country. He will know that on 12 May, from this Dispatch Box, we challenged the Government to come forward with a comprehensive safety plan for Hong Kong nationals and others, so I have two questions. Will he meet those from the embassy without any delay to communicate the strong message from MPs about the importance of peaceful protest in this country? Is it the case that Greater Manchester police have not yet received the CCTV footage because the consul general is refusing to hand it over?

What will the Minister do to tackle this problem? Is it possible for him to expel the individual and then for that individual to apply to return? If it were that way round, we would at least know that the Government had taken the strongest action possible.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her questions. She is right to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for his interview with Mr Chan. It was an important moment and my right hon. Friend deserves congratulation from across this House on that. As for what the hon. Lady said, I do not think she can have listened to what I said, which is a pity. The ambassador is not in the UK and has not been since before the beginning of this week, so he is not available for any kind of diplomatic interaction. In any case, the chargé d’affaires is the appropriate person for this kind of exchange. The last time an ambassador was summonsed to a meeting with a Minister—indeed, the Foreign Minister —was following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. That gives a sense of the way in which the diplomatic niceties work out.

On CCTV and the Greater Manchester police, I cannot comment on that as it is a matter outside the purview of the Government. However, if the Chinese consulate is not giving up any CCTV that it has, I would certainly encourage it to do so.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee, Alicia Kearns.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

I welcome this urgent question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. It is clear that the House is unhappy with the course that the Government have taken and I must challenge the Minister on some of the comments he has made this morning. It is not “apparent” involvement; there are no ifs or buts here. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has said, the consul general has not only admitted that he is responsible, but praised his own role in these actions and said that he would do it again. It is a political decision to expel, not a policing one. Will the Minister therefore confirm that, as he suggested from the Dispatch Box just now, his preference is to prosecute these individuals and see them in British prisons? Secondly, what are the diplomatic consequences that he references? Are they expulsion? We need plain speaking at this time. The House is clearly united in its position and I urge the Government to listen to it.

[Jesse Norman]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for that. She has made clear her view that a crime was committed, and that is the view that many others have taken, but it is not a determination of fact at the level we would need. She may have missed the portion of what I said earlier to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green about the fact that we recognise that the diplomatic channel and the legal are separate, but they are not separate as regards a determination of fact. Those are the proper grounds for us to make a determination as a Government. As regards the political desire, we will be looking at the fact situation as it is brought forward and at the options. She may have missed this too, but I said that I would expect there to be an update to the House next week, as further events play themselves out. We will make a judgment in due course on that basis.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)]

This is a serious diplomatic incident. As others have said, the violent clash between pro-democracy protesters and officials at the Chinese consulate is disturbing and goes directly against the tenets of diplomacy, freedom of speech and protest. Bob Chan, who fled Hong Kong for his life, was pulled through the gates into the consulate and beaten by staff. He was left with cuts and bruises to his face, and video footage shows his hair being pulled by the Chinese consul general, who has already asserted that that was his “duty”.

The SNP condemns in the strongest terms this violence against peaceful protesters and calls for an urgent investigation. If the individuals responsible for such violence cannot be criminally prosecuted due to diplomatic immunity, they must be formally expelled from the UK. What action will the Minister commit to taking to hold the consul general to account, in both domestic law and international law?

Chinese Consulate: Attack on Hong Kong Protesters

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. On the point of the summons, my understanding is that the chargé d’affaires will meet with officials this afternoon, there having already been an informal exchange of concern between the two sides. My hon. Friend will know that, precisely because of the belief in this House in the rule of law, it is up to our independent police and Crown Prosecution Service to decide first on the facts of the matter and then on whether a prosecution should be brought. But, like her, I witnessed what took place in the video on Sunday and I am sure every Member of this House feels the same level of concern as she does.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Catherine West.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

I am so pleased that there is consensus across this House that freedom of expression is an important principle which we hold dear in our democracy, and it is testament to our freedoms that on countless occasions in recent years protesters have been able to express their views, whether on China, Russia, Myanmar or countless other countries.

What we saw at the weekend in Manchester was, as the Mayor of Manchester has said, a sharp departure from this established pillar of our liberal democracy. The sight of suspected Chinese consular officials destroying posters, using violence and intimidation, and dragging a protester into the grounds of the consulate and assaulting him is deeply shocking. We all want to be clear that that behaviour is not and never will be acceptable and deserves condemnation in the strongest possible terms. We simply cannot tolerate the type of action we have seen. The principle of free expression is so important, as is the protection of Hong Kongers and others who have fled Beijing’s repression, although I note with irony that later today we will be debating a Government Bill that discusses some of the same themes.

Labour has been consistently warning about the need to protect newly arrived Hong Kong people. May I press the Minister on what exactly will happen to consular officials who have been properly identified as involved in this incident? Can this House expect that they will be expelled from the UK?

What discussions has the Minister had with the Home Office and Levelling Up Secretaries on a proper plan for robust and extensive support for Hong Kong people across the country to ensure that they are protected and supported in the face of ongoing surveillance and oppression? What steps will he take to ensure that the sanctity of our freedoms—specifically, the freedom of expression—is protected outside all foreign embassies and consulate grounds in the UK to avoid a repeat of this shocking behaviour? Mr Speaker, as you said yesterday, the Hong Kong community in the UK is watching, and actions must match words.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. I do not think that there is any suggestion of dancing away. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton, in her position as the recently elected Chair, put the question. We respect that, and we worked with the Speaker’s Office and with her to answer it. That is exactly what we are doing now, and rightly so.

As to my right hon. Friend’s question, it is of course a question of law as to what offences were committed on British soil, and it is absolutely right to have a legal procedure that goes through that and examines the question in all its aspects. As to summoning the ambassador, I thank my right hon. Friend for his input. We have already outlined the process of raising the matter formally with the Chinese embassy, and we will see where the legal and prosecutorial procedures may lead. At that point, we will take further action.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

I commend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee for bringing forward the urgent question and, you, Mr Speaker, for granting it. This is an important thing for us all to take stock of. I take at face value the Minister’s assurance of consequence once the independent investigation has completed. I invite him to come back to the House and make a statement once that investigation is concluded, because we need to maintain our interest in it.

There has been concern for many years about the networks of coercion and control that the Chinese state has over Chinese nationals in the UK. Will the Minister add to his efforts and bring Confucius Institutes into his thinking? There are networks that need a lot more scrutiny than they have had. If Manchester proves to be what we fear it was, it was a considerable escalation of the Chinese networks of coercion and control, and the Confucius Institutes need to be part of the investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

There we are—I call the Minister.

[Jesse Norman]

It is absolutely right to highlight the change in the position that China has taken over the past seven years. I do not think there is any doubt that it has changed, and we have had to evolve and change our response to that. The hon. Member is also right to talk about the importance of resolute action. However, this is in the context of the kind of constructive, multi-layered relationship that my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) mentioned. We therefore have to try all the measures in our power to retain a respect for the rules-based order, not just in this country, but around the world with our allies, and we are doing that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 7th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Minister.

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

Good morning to you, Mr Speaker. It is great to be in a Chamber that is 100% full strength after so many months. If I may make a personal note without undue deference, Mr Speaker, I will say that I thoroughly appreciated your remarks about standards within the Chamber.

To date, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has not initiated insolvency proceedings against any taxpayer for a loan charge debt. No estimate can be provided for the number of people who have fallen into debt or who have been declared bankrupt and are subject to the loan charge because, where debts arise, HMRC is not always the only creditor. Some individuals are declared bankrupt as a result of a non-HMRC debt and some may choose to enter insolvency themselves based on their overall financial position.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I congratulate Elddis, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on giving Elddis profile, on fighting the campaign that he has, and on the outcome and its very successful results in this case. I have it on very good authority that the Chancellor would be delighted to visit Elddis, so I am in a position to make a binding commitment from the Government side, and I am sure that he looks forward to it very much.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements for the next business.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 27th April 2021 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I salute the people of Carlton and I rejoice in the businesses of Mapperley. I encourage businesses across the constituency of Gedling to take advantage of the Government’s unprecedented package of support, including the £5 billion-worth of grant support that the Chancellor announced at Budget, which is providing a lifeline for businesses as they relaunch their trading safely.

[Mr Speaker]

I am now suspending the House for three minutes to enable the necessary arrangements to be made for the next business.

Exiting the European Union (Value Added Tax)

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move,

That the Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments to Acts of Parliament) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1312), dated 18 November 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 November, be approved.

[Mr Speaker]

With this we will take the following motion:

That the Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 1544), dated 18 December 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21 December, be approved.

[Jesse Norman]

These two statutory instruments are part of a package of measures connected to the UK’s exit from the EU. They make a number of consequential and necessary changes in order to ensure that the VAT system continued and continues to operate, as required, following the end of the transition period. They have been designed to ensure fairness, to protect against double taxation and avoidance, and to make certain that existing reliefs continue to apply following the UK’s departure from the EU. Both instruments took effect at the end of the transition period.

The Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments to Acts of Parliament) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 make three changes to the VAT Act 1994 and one change to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. The first change applies to the VAT treatment of aircraft handling services. Until the end of the transition period, the VAT Act included a VAT zero rate for handling services supplied to aircraft operating on international routes. These included landing and housing fees, security and fire services. This zero-rate band also applied to the handling and storage of goods carried in those aircraft, but only at a customs and excise airport. However, suppliers could previously rely on EU legislation to zero-rate their services at non-customs and excise airports. This instrument therefore provides for the continued application of the relief in UK legislation following the end of the transition period.

Secondly, this instrument includes a new VAT zero rate for the handling services supplied to international trains. These include network track access, shunting and storage, station and guard services, light maintenance services and the handling and storage of goods carried on the trains. The measure aligns the VAT treatment of international trains with that of qualifying ships and aircraft. For ships and aircraft, services for which the zero rate applies can be carried out only at a port or airport, but for international trains these services could be supplied at various other sites along a rail route. The instrument therefore provides a power for the Revenue and Customs commissioners to specify those sites in a notice. That will ensure that the relief applies appropriately to trains.

Thirdly, the instrument makes a change that allows those supplying pension fund management services to funds established in the EU to recover the VAT that they incur.

Finally, the instrument removes a change made in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 to the VAT treatment of certain travel services. The change is no longer necessary because the subsequent Value Added Tax (Tour Operators) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 included a revision of the VAT treatment of such services.

Let me turn to the second instrument to be debated: the Value Added Tax (Miscellaneous Amendments to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020. This legislation includes four changes to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and the revocation of an instrument laid in 2019 in connection with EU exit.

First, the legislation makes changes to the DIY house builders’ scheme to place self-builders in Northern Ireland in the same position as those in Great Britain. The DIY house builders’ scheme allows people who construct their own dwellings—a relevant residential or charitable building—or make a residential conversion to claim back the VAT on certain building materials, including VAT incurred on imports. Under the Northern Ireland protocol, materials bought by self-builders in Northern Ireland from suppliers in an EU member state may be subject to VAT in Northern Ireland. The instrument ensures that a DIY house builder in Northern Ireland can recover VAT charged on materials bought from a supplier in an EU member state.

Secondly, the instrument allows HMRC to obtain information in relation to VAT owed by businesses and individuals in member states. Similar legislation applied to the whole of the UK until the end of the transition period, reflecting the requirement for mutual co-operation between member states in connection with VAT. The retention of the legislation, particularly in respect of Northern Ireland, is a requirement of the withdrawal agreement.

Thirdly, the instrument contains measures to prevent unscrupulous businesses from avoiding import VAT. Under the Government’s commitment to unfettered access, goods in free circulation in Northern Ireland that are moved to Great Britain are relieved from duty and VAT on entry. However, UK customs legislation contains a provision to remove the duty relief if it is found that goods have been routed from an EU member state via Northern Ireland to Great Britain in order to avoid import duty. The instrument ensures that, if the customs provision is triggered, the VAT relief will no longer apply as well. It also prevents double taxation for businesses that make exempt supplies and move goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

Finally, the instrument revokes the Finance Act 2011, Schedule 23 (Data-gathering Powers) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid in the event of a no-deal scenario and are therefore no longer required.

The instruments provide a number of significant and necessary changes to ensure that the VAT system continues to operate as required following the end of the transition period. They will ensure fairness, protect against double taxation and avoidance, and make certain that existing reliefs continue to apply. I hope colleagues will join me in supporting this legislation, which I commend to the House.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 26th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Kinnock [V]]

The Chancellor likes to claim that the UK offers one of the most generous support schemes for self-employed people in the world, but self-employed women who have taken maternity leave in the past few years are not supported generously at all—in fact, they have received a lot less financial support than their peers who have not taken maternity leave. The charity Pregnant Then Screwed reported that around 75,000 self-employed women have been subject to— [Inaudible.]

[Mr Speaker]

Did you get any of that, Minister Norman?

[Jesse Norman]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

If you can get something out of it, please do.

[Jesse Norman]

If I may just say, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. We are not talking about a claim that is not validated by third parties; it is understood internationally that the scheme is one of the most generous in the world. He will be aware that the issue is subject to legal challenge, which limits what I can say, but I can tell him that the Government are well aware that some self-employed people found that their eligibility for the scheme was affected if they had taken time out of their trade in 2018-19, which is why, in June last year, the scheme’s eligibility criteria were revised to ensure that people in that situation were able to claim self-employment income support.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on testing. As he will be aware, the “test to release” regime combines a much shorter self-isolation period with a real focus on public health. As he will also know from the global travel taskforce report, we as a country are continuing to explore pre-departure testing with partner countries on a bilateral basis, including different models by which that might be delivered.

[Mr Speaker]

Question 15 is withdrawn, so we have a substantive question to the Chancellor.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

[Mr Speaker]

[Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)]

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

[Mr Speaker]

[Harriett Baldwin]

Economic Outlook and Furlough Scheme Changes

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 16th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Treasury Committee both for what he says today and for his report. He will know, and he took considerable evidence on, the constraints that the Government were under in bringing the different schemes into play. I am the last person to decry the energy and the effectiveness either of the businesses that have been supported by the job retention scheme or the self-employed people and businesses that have been supported by the self-employed scheme. Of course, we will take very carefully into consideration the report that he gives, and any positive and constructive suggestions that are contained in that report about how we can improve matters, and we continue to review the situation within the Treasury.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the SNP spokesperson, Alison Thewliss, with one minute.

[Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)]

I thank the Minister for the comments he has made. While the support under the schemes, including the coronavirus job retention scheme, is welcome, many of the comments I made on 17 March and 27 April about those who have not been supported still stand. The Treasury Committee would agree that the 1 million who have been left out of this support have been left out of support because of the Government’s own choice—the Government have decided not to support these people—and further issues remain about maternity, the derisory 26p extra given to refugees and those with no recourse to public funds.

The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Fair Work and Culture, Fiona Hyslop, has written to the Government, identifying tourism, arts and culture, oil and gas, childcare, retail, and rural and island communities as being particularly at risk, so will the Minister now accept that winding up the furlough scheme and putting the costs on to employers is a significant risk and will put people out of jobs? Will he extend it beyond October for sectors that are particularly pressed? Will he look at extending the self-employed support scheme, as many of those people will still require support on an ongoing basis because the work they did is no longer there? Will he look at VAT cuts to tourism and hospitality, which will support those sectors that have seen so much pressure and get them back on their feet at a time when they are really struggling? Lastly, does he agree with Lord Forsyth that there will be a tsunami of job losses, with 3 million people left without work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Let me reflect upon it.

[Mr Speaker]

We will try again with Jamie Stone.

[Jamie Stone]

Further to the previous questions, when the highlands tourism industry eventually reopens, it is likely that very few businesses will make enough money to see them through the dark winter months. In the spirit of the Minister’s previous answers, would he agree to meet me to discuss how the furlough scheme and other support schemes can be fine-tuned to make sure that those businesses survive to next year?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jesse Norman]

Tech hubs in Sevenoaks are my regular reflection; I thank my hon. Friend very much for her question. Of course, she is absolutely right. As we think about a more sustainable, greener and more productive economy, we need to be thinking about how our whole industrial strategy and posture will change, and I have no doubt that it will involve continued investment and support for technology in all its manifestations across the UK.

[Mr Speaker]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I will now suspend the House for five minutes.

Finance Bill

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution
Monday 27th April 2020 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

I congratulate the new shadow Chancellor and her shadow Treasury team on their appointments. Six weeks ago, on 11 March, this House assembled to hear my right hon. Friend the Chancellor deliver his Budget speech. How long ago that seems now when every day feels like a decade. A Budget statement is a central part of our democracy; indeed, it is at the very heart of a parliamentary tradition of accountability for taxation that goes back to the 13th century. It is deeply sobering to reflect that that 11 March moment might be the last great parliamentary occasion we have in this Chamber for some time to come.

Truly, we know better now. We live in a disenchanted world, a world of self-isolation, of social distancing, of shielding, of lockdown. In the Treasury and across Government as a whole we have worked around the clock since then to respond to the extraordinary challenges posed by the coronavirus to people’s lives and livelihoods. The same has been true in this Palace of Westminster. I know that I speak for all my colleagues in saying that I have the greatest respect for the work that you, Mr Speaker, and so many others, including parliamentarians across this House, have done to prevent covid-19 from becoming a threat to our democracy itself. I pay special tribute to all the Clerks and staff of this House of Commons and of the Palace of Westminster for working so quickly and creatively to adapt to this new reality and for their skill in drawing on the flexibility and resilience of our uncodified constitution to create a virtual Parliament.

When this Chamber was bombed and destroyed on the night of Saturday 10 May 1941, with the fires raging, the roof fallen in and the Lobbies and corridors gutted, it was decided that the Commons should sit immediately in Church House. Extraordinary measures were undertaken at great speed to transfer proceedings to the new location. The Commons rarely sat on Mondays, so it duly reconvened in the normal way on Tuesday 13 May, but it did so in Church House. There were oral questions to the Secretary of State for War, including on officers’ outfits and the collection of swill and vegetable waste from military units, followed by a full Order Paper of business and, at the end, a short statement from the Prime Minister in which he reported that the old Chamber was damaged beyond immediate repair and that preparations were already under way for a move to a further location, if that should be necessary. Thus the biggest and the worst raid of the blitz resulted in the loss of not one single day—indeed, not one single minute—of sitting time for Parliament. It is a moment of which this country can be intensely proud.

Why so much determination and so much speed? It was so that, as Churchill said:

“hon. Members may be reassured that the work of our Parliamentary institutions will not be interrupted by enemy action”.—[Official Report, 13 May 1941; Vol. 371, c. 1086.]

It was so British democracy should not be thought to have been destroyed amid the burning ruins of the Commons Chamber, and so that the great thread of public scrutiny and parliamentary accountability that gives legitimacy and authority to our Government should not be broken. So it is again today, Mr Speaker. For that, we are, and we will always be, profoundly grateful. I hope that we shall soon return to the close combat of political business, whether that be the intimate interrogation of the Chamber, the camaraderie of the Lobbies or the noise and clamour of a full House packed to the rafters with MPs, press and public looking on, all fully intent on our national political business; the House of Commons as the cockpit of the nation.

Here again, history can be our guide. When the Chamber was rebuilt, special care was taken to make it, as it had been, too small for the number of Members. That was at the specific insistence of Churchill. In his words, the essence of good House of Commons speaking is the “conversational style”. This requires a

“fairly small space, and there should be on great occasions a sense of crowd and urgency…a sense that great matters are being decided, there and then, by the House”.

Not for Churchill the vast, empty hall of Deputies, the amphitheatre, or what he called “Harangues from a rostrum”. Without that collective sense of crowd and urgency and the ever-shifting energy of the House in action, we lose something vital.

Mr Speaker, I ask you this: can we not also gain from this great virtual experiment? Through new forms of questioning and calmer, more dispassionate cross-examination of Government, may we not find glimmers of new possibility amid the present gloom? I believe that we can. The significance of today’s debate lies not just in this Finance Bill, important though it is; it marks a new legislative beginning for Parliament. As we go forward together, I hope that we in this House can restore not merely our old ways, but what was best in them, and use this moment to add, to develop, to reform and to make them better still.

When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor addressed the House on 11 March, he announced a Budget focused on delivering the Government’s manifesto commitments from the general election last year. He did not only that; he also set out and carefully explained the reasons for a very ambitious and wide-ranging set of measures designed to tackle the coronavirus head-on, to buttress our frontline services and to support people, families and businesses affected by the pandemic.

Since then the Government have gone much further still. Indeed, we have announced what we believe to be the most comprehensive and far-reaching economic response to covid-19 in the developed world, and Ministers and public servants across Government have worked to deliver it. Among its many different packages, that response includes a job retention scheme, which guarantees 80% of the wages of furloughed workers, and which has been conceived, developed and launched by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in just a few weeks.

Alongside the job retention scheme is a similarly generous scheme aimed at supporting the self-employed for 80% of taxable trading profits up to £50,000. This covers some 95% of those who are mainly self-employed, including cleaners, taxi drivers, plumbers, musicians, journalists, electricians, childminders and many others. Businesses can also benefit from more than £300 billion-worth of Government-backed loans, numerous tax cuts and grants, with a business rates holiday for the worst-affected sectors of the economy. There has also been a further package of measures aimed at the charitable sector.

These are unprecedented measures for unprecedented times. The impact of the coronavirus falls not only on businesses, but directly on the well-being of some of the most vulnerable people in our society, whom the Government are determined to protect. For that reason, the Government have raised by £1,000 the universal credit standard allowance and working tax credit basic element for a year. Almost a billion pounds has been allocated so that the local housing allowance can cover at least 30% of market rent, and the Government have offered vouchers or meals at home for children who would otherwise be eligible for free school meals.

This Bill goes beyond the immediate response to covid-19 by delivering the Government’s manifesto commitment to make the tax system fairer and more proportionate. For example, care leavers who start apprenticeships will pay no income tax on bursary payments that they receive. I am delighted to say to recipients of payments under the Windrush compensation scheme and the troubles permanent disablement payment scheme that those payments will be exempt from income, inheritance and capital gains tax, and inheritance tax will not be collected on Kindertransport fund payments.

Taxes are rarely popular or straightforward, but they are necessary to support our public services. Now, more than ever, the Government have a duty to ensure that the rules are applied correctly. Last month, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced that, in the light of covid-19, the Government will delay the introduction of reforms to the off-payroll working rules in order to give businesses more time to adapt. However, he was clear that the Government remain fully committed to introducing these reforms to ensure that people working like employees but through their own limited companies pay broadly the same tax as individuals who are employed directly. That has not changed, and the Government will introduce an amendment to the Bill in due course to legislate for a new commencement date of 6 April 2021. The Government will use the additional time to commission further external research into the long-term effects of the reforms in the public sector, with the intention that that research will be available before the reforms come into effect in the private sector in April 2021.

Meanwhile, this Bill implements the recommendations of Sir Amyas Morse’s independent review of the loan charge. It will mean that the loan charge no longer applies to loans entered into before 9 December 2010, which is the point at which Sir Amyas found that the law put beyond doubt the fact that disguised remuneration schemes were a form of tax avoidance. The Bill also brings forward legislation to repay taxpayers who voluntarily settled for years that are no longer in scope, while those still able to pay will be able to spread their loan balance over three tax years to suit their finances.

The Budget also included changes to help businesses to prosper for years to come. This Bill will implement the Government’s manifesto commitment to increase the research and development expenditure credit rates from 12% to 13% in order to help drive growth and productivity across the UK, and to continue to support this country’s proud history of innovation. It also raises the structures and buildings allowance rate from 2% to 3%, which should help to stimulate long-term capital investment in the United Kingdom by strengthening the business case for investment in shops, factories and agricultural buildings. Those changes apply nationwide, underlining the fact that, even in these times of uncertainty, the Government are seeking to level up investment and opportunity right across the whole United Kingdom.

The Government have made successive cuts to the rate of corporation tax since 2010 and we now have the lowest headline rate in the G20. That has helped to create a corporate tax system that supports British businesses, boosts economic growth and strengthens the UK’s pull for inward investment.

However, the extra benefits of lowering corporation tax rates still further must be balanced against other objectives, such as funding the NHS and the public services on which we all rely. That is why the Chancellor announced that the Government will not cut the corporation tax rate further this year, but instead will maintain it at 19%, in line with their manifesto commitment.

Likewise, while the Government are committed to encouraging entrepreneurial activity, the evidence indicates that entrepreneurs’ relief in its current form is neither effective in stimulating new business growth nor good value for money. By reducing the lifetime limit from £10 million to £1 million, we are returning the relief to its original purpose while continuing to promote and reward enterprise.

Finally, following an extensive period of consultation, the Bill will implement the digital services tax. Digital businesses providing search engines, social media platforms and online marketplaces derive significant value from their UK users, but current international corporate tax rules mean that that value is not reflected in the level of UK tax they pay. Setting a tax on revenues from those digital services at a rate of 2% will make the system fairer and should raise up to £2 billion over the next five years, but the Government’s ultimate goal is to secure a long-term global solution. We are working with international partners through the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to agree a way forward.

Covid-19 is the most pressing challenge for the country—and, indeed, the world—at the moment, but it is by no means the only one. Notwithstanding our intense focus on tackling the pandemic, the Government have not lost sight of longer-term public concerns, notably the need for the UK to move to a greener and more sustainable economy in the years ahead. Now that we have left the European Union and as we prepare to leave the EU emissions trading system, this Bill introduces legislation for both a charging power to create a UK emissions trading system, and a carbon emissions tax.

This twin-track approach is designed to ensure that, whatever the circumstances, the UK will have an effective carbon pricing regime in place. In the Budget, the Chancellor also revealed key elements of the plastic packaging tax, which should significantly increase the use of recycled materials in packaging. This Bill allows preparatory spending ahead of its introduction.

The Bill will also encourage the uptake of zero-emission vehicles by removing them from the vehicle excise duty expensive car supplement, which will mean that employers and employees pay no tax on zero-emission company cars in 2020-21. The United Kingdom has led the world in introducing legally binding carbon emissions reduction targets; these measures underline once again how serious the Government are about meeting those targets.

My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made it quite clear that we will do what it takes to support our public services and key workers as they respond to this pandemic, and to safeguard jobs and businesses so that our economy can bounce back as quickly as possible. Yet we must also look to the future. The advent of a virtual Parliament is a chance to chart new territory, and this Bill is a first step on that journey.

The Bill also redeems the manifesto promises of the last election. It points the way to a fairer tax system and a greener and more sustainable future. With the support of Members from across the House, and as we look beyond lockdown, it gives us all an opportunity to cement the United Kingdom’s place as one of the most innovative, exciting and enterprising nations in the world. For all those reasons, I commend this Bill to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Anneliese Dodds, who is asked to speak for no more than 15 minutes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Duncan Baker]

Clearly, we are living through unprecedented times, and I want to say thank you to all the Treasury team for the incredible work they are doing—working throughout the night—to help businesses up and down the country. Many sectors will be hugely impacted by coronavirus, not least my home of North Norfolk. We are now seeing shops being shut on the high street—quite rightly so—and I just want the Minister to consider that they will be hit enormously. When we come out of this pandemic, a 2% or 3% VAT-style tax rise to help high streets would be very well considered and welcome. Let us just remember that our last great leader was Margaret Thatcher, who said that we are a nation of shopkeepers—let us help them.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the hon. Gentleman ought not to take advantage. We are just starting. I think he has got the message.

[Jesse Norman]

I speak for all my colleagues in saying how grateful I am to my hon. Friend for his kind regards and wishes. Of course, all taxes are taken into account and monitored by the Treasury, and will be subject to consideration at future fiscal events. We are living through very unusual times. I hope my hon. Friend understands that the high street, which was under pressure years before the current outbreak, is something we have supported over a period of time, most recently with a comprehensive package of support. He will be aware of the specific measures we have taken to support eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties.

Automated and Electric Vehicles Bill

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Jesse Norman)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this we may take Lords amendments 2 to 32.

[Jesse Norman]

I am very pleased to be able to bring back this piece of legislation to the House. The Bill is an important aspect of our industrial strategy, which was published last year. It brings forward legislation, where it is appropriate, to assist the development and deployment of both automated and electric vehicles in this country. It does so by amending the existing compulsory third party insurance framework for vehicles, extending it to cover the use of automated vehicles. It also gives powers to improve the electric vehicle charging infrastructure framework to ensure that it is easy to use, available in strategic locations and “smart” to alleviate pressures on the grid.

Members will recall that, in addition to the support from both the insurance and the motor industries, this Bill had broad support from across the House when it was considered, and this broad support continued, I am delighted to say, throughout the Bill’s passage in the Lords. The Lords have made several amendments, which have helped to strengthen the Bill still further.

Fuel Poverty

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

It is good to see the Minister again.

[Jesse Norman]

Mr Deputy Speaker, I had until recently hoped to be greeting your female colleague—Madam Deputy Speaker—as you and I have spent so much time in the Chamber over the past few days. In her absence, it is a delight to welcome you to the Chair.

I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for their contributions to this debate. I will respond to some of their many points but, first, I will recap the situation. The most recent statistics, as highlighted by my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and Industry in his opening remarks, show that there were approximately 780,000 fewer homes in the lowest energy efficiency rating bands—E, F and G—in 2014 compared with 2010, which demonstrates real, sustainable progress towards the 2020 and 2025 milestones. It is clear from the statistics that the fuel poverty milestones and target are backloaded and that the scale of improvements required to reach each of the target dates increases over time.

Today, the energy company obligation regulations are being debated in the House of Lords. They seek to increase the proportion of support directed at low-income homes. Although the ECO policy has reduced in size compared with the scale of recent years, support for low-income households has been protected. In fact, the regulations for the new scheme to launch on 1 April 2017 represent an increase from £310 million to £450 million a year.

Combined with immediate support on the cost of energy bills provided via the warm home discount, there will be at least £770 million of support for low-income and vulnerable consumers over 2017-18. That is a significant commitment towards some of the households that are faced with the challenge of keeping their home warm. It is therefore far from true that, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said, the Government are turning their back on the situation. Quite the opposite.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss), criticised what she described as the Government’s “quite abysmal” record. I can do no better than to point out that, in the years from 2003 to 2010, the last Labour Government succeeded in increasing the number of fuel-poor households from 2.41 million to 2.49 million. The result of what she regards as an effective energy policy was to increase the number of people in fuel poverty.

Regulation, particularly for landlords, will also play an important role in making progress towards the milestones, as will other actions such as the safeguard tariff for pre-payment meters and the roll out of smart meters. In the longer term, the Government will be assessing the resources and policy mix required to meet the 2030 fuel poverty target. However, flexibility is important given the long-term, structural nature of fuel poverty. We should not, in 2017, seek to say precisely how best we can meet the target or commit future Governments to 13 years of spending in a particular way given that so much could change in the energy sector and in applicable technologies.

Energy Prices

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 16th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Jesse Norman)]

This is the second debate in which I have had the pleasure of speaking this week, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, as the fellow said, truly you’re getting to be a habit with me, and I thoroughly welcome that.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Always a pleasure.

[Jesse Norman]

Let that be noted in the record. Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose) on fighting his way through the dragons of dragons’ den and, with his colleagues, securing the booty of this debate, which I greatly welcome. Whatever else its effect might be, it sends a powerful signal about the feelings of not only the Members who have spoken so well today but Members up and down the country on the issues that have been described. I will talk about those issues and the policy and will try to weave in my responses to the speeches during the course of my comments.

The Government are firmly focused on getting the best deal for energy consumers and on ensuring that the market works for everyone. We absolutely expect energy companies to treat all their customers fairly. We therefore continue to be concerned about price rises that will hit millions of people already paying more than they need to. It is not acceptable that five of the largest suppliers are increasing their standard variable prices, hitting customers hard in the pocket when they are already paying more than necessary. It must be noted that wholesale prices, which account for about half of an average bill, are still lower than in 2014. This is a moment not for crisis, but for sober reflection.

Prices are not the same as bills. The recent report from the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee reminded us that electricity bills have risen little over the past 25 years, which is due to insulation, appliance improvement and other things. Prices are not the same as bills, but that is not to say that prices are not important and that price rises are not a matter for concern.

Education, Skills and Training

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

In that spirit, may I congratulate my hon. Friend on his great leadership on the new university project in Herefordshire, which is now under way? The aim is not only to transform higher education in my county and to create extraordinary economic potential, but to innovate across the country as a whole by tying together academic and vocational education, and by using resources to create greater employability. That is being done with the support of Warwick University and Olin College in America. Does my hon. Friend share my view that, in order to make that vision happen in cold spots, it is really important not just for central Government to give a lead, as he has done in the White Paper, but for local government grants, central Government guarantees and private money to come together as single whole?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order, I think we will have the Minister. Save your speech for later.

Select Committee on Governance of the House

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Wednesday 10th September 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend has put this motion before the House today. Is he aware that I understand from an answer to me that the panel was completely unaware that Carol Mills was undergoing investigation—two investigations, actually—by the Australian Senate before it made its decision? Moreover, Saxton Bampfylde wished to inform the panel that that was the case, and the panel was advised not to take evidence from it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are lots of speakers on the list, including the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), who I want to get in early on, so we must have very short interventions.

[Jesse Norman]

I was not aware of that, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising it now.

The Speaker has made clear his personal support for a split between the roles of Clerk and chief executive. In a statement to the House last week he called for the issues of a pre-appointment hearing and a possible split in roles to be examined and the views of Members to be solicited in detail. This debate, and the governance Select Committee and procedure for wider consultation proposed in the motion, are the House’s response to that request by the Speaker.

The proper governance of this House is a matter of enormous public importance. Indeed, it is properly considered a constitutional matter, first, because the British constitution—at least such as it is for the next eight days—relies on the effective functioning of Parliament and, secondly, because this Parliament, and especially the Clerk, act as the final word on procedural matters for a host of further Parliaments across the Commonwealth.

Contrary to popular belief, parliamentary procedure—the rules of the game—is not some pettifogging accretion, or irrelevant decoration, to the business of democratic government; it is the essence of democratic government. This country is governed by laws, laws are made in Parliament, and that Parliament is run according to rules and procedure; without procedure, there could be no government. Indeed, even the role of chief executive has a constitutional dimension, because the capacity of Members to hold the Government to account rests in part on how well they are enabled to function by the House service.

Because of the importance of this subject, the House has regularly sought to assess the quality of its own governance. Three times in the last 30 years it has invited outside experts to lead a process of review: Sir Robin Ibbs, Mr Michael Braithwaite and Sir Kevin Tebbit. No institution is perfect, of course, and some of their criticisms have been stringent. Even so, those reviews have identified a fairly clear, if inconsistent, path of reform and modernisation.

The first such review, the Ibbs review of 1990, painted a pretty damaging picture of administrative incompetence:

“Good financial management systems and the associated control mechanisms did not exist. There was no effective planning, measurement of achievement against requirement, nor assessment of value for money.”

The Braithwaite review in 1999 acknowledged the constitutional significance of a properly resourced and effective Parliament. It recognised that

“the Ibbs team found a situation which was profoundly unsatisfactory in terms of responsibilities, structure and operation.”

It acknowledged that significant progress had been made, but at the same time it made clear that

“full implementation of Ibbs was slow and in some areas did not occur.”

The Tebbit review in 2007 was rather more encouraging. It concluded that:

“The present system is certainly not broken”

and that it was “well regarded overall”. It mentioned

“effective management of delivery and services”,

adding it was

“highly effective in core scrutiny and legislative functions”,

but it made a crucial exception for the management of the estate and works. It recommended steps to improve integration, transparency and clarity of management goals, and to create a stronger finance function and greater professional management across the board.

To those, we may perhaps add one last data point. In the recent debate on the retirement of the last Clerk, Sir Robert Rogers, the House was united not only in acclaiming the merits of Sir Robert himself as Clerk, but in acknowledging the progress the House had made in key areas of management and modernisation. Those include implementing a substantial savings programme without loss of service, the introduction of new IT and a drive towards paperless working, far greater outreach and significant improvement on issues of diversity and equality, as well as a new apprenticeships programme.

The Chair of the Finance and Services Committee, the right hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), aptly summarised the situation by recognising

“a transformation in the management of the House Service, which has moved from what could be described as an era of gifted amateurism to one of thoroughly competent professionalism.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2014; Vol. 584, c. 901.]

House of Lords Reform Bill

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Monday 9th July 2012 Commons Chamber

[Jesse Norman]

I am grateful to the Minister for stating that he wishes to be impaled on the first horn of the dilemma: in the absence of regulation that would render the actions of the Houses justiciable, he wishes to impale himself on the horn of constant gridlock and competition between the two sides.

Lord Pannick concludes that

“the Government have, hitherto, failed to recognise the difficulty”—

failed to recognise the difficulty—

“and the importance of the constitutional issue arising from a decision to elect 80% of the House of Lords.”

Members of the House of Commons, Lord Pannick is no partisan, no party politician. His is quiet but devastating criticism. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us about what external advice the Government took when they reformulated clause 2. We now know which of the two options he proposes to take, so I need not ask him. He proposes not to allow the judges in, but to leave future disputes between the two Houses to the conventions —and a thoroughly unsatisfactory compromise that is.

In politics, as in all else, timing is everything. That applies in particular to voting against one’s own Government for the first time, which is not something to be wasted on a small measure. Luckily, however, this Bill makes it very easy. There is a fundamental issue of constitutional principle at stake; the Bill is a hopeless mess; it is in no sense a piece of Conservative legislation; it lacks any genuine manifesto commitment; it proposes a new upper Chamber that will be less expert, less diverse and more expensive than the present one, let alone one after sensible reforms; and the issue is absolutely irrelevant to the overwhelming need to put out the fire in the economic engine room. I shall be voting against it and I would venture to suggest that the Bill is such that all MPs, Conservative or not, have a constitutional obligation to vote against it. Only thus can we rid our country of—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order.

Amendment of the Law

Debate between Jesse Norman and Lindsay Hoyle

Thursday 24th March 2011 Commons Chamber

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

I am not sure quite which hallucinogenic substances are being ingested on the Opposition Benches, but if I may ask a question—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I think that we will reconsider the suggestion about drug taking.

[Jesse Norman]

I am happy to withdraw the suggestion and to make it clear that the substances in question were not hallucinogenic. May I simply ask the shadow Chancellor—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Is there a suggestion that my ruling was wrong?

[Jesse Norman]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I take it that you have withdrawn the suggestion, Mr Norman. I accept that. Are you now going to pose a very quick question?

[Jesse Norman]

Will the shadow Chancellor enlighten us on why WPP left this country under the last Administration, and why it has now returned, as has been announced in the news today?