Brexit: Opportunities
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michael Ellis
I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this area. I agree about the almost inevitable direction of travel, unless there is an intercession, which is what the Government wish and intend to do with my statement today and the announcement that we are going forward with. I repeat my thanks for his work and assure him of our best intentions in regard to fulfilling his wishes.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Paymaster General is right—Brexit is now a fact—but clearly, the Government see advantage in keeping the grievance going. The EU remains our most important trading partner. It is hugely significant for businesses up and down the country, so instead of turning up the Brexit rhetoric, does he not think that the Government’s priority should be to listen to the problems raised by British business? Will he commit to looking at the recommendations highlighted in relation to those problems in the UK Trade and Business Commission’s report to be published on Monday?
Michael Ellis
I am happy to confirm that my party is the party of business. We do listen to business, and business prospers in this country under Conservative Governments and will continue to do so. Of course, our ears are open and always will be to views from all sides. That includes and, in fact, specifically in relation to regulations, will include businesses.
Leaving the EU: Impact on the UK
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
During four long years as a shadow Brexit Minister, I sat through many debates peppered with talk of global Britain, as the Government erected barriers to partnership with our most important allies and closest neighbours with complete disregard for the consequences. The Prime Minister has been at it again this week, talking about the UK’s place on the global stage while trashing our reputation abroad, reneging again on international commitments to which he signed up.
It is a time for mature diplomacy—for rebuilding trust to sort out the problems with the Brexit deal as they become increasingly evident. Instead, the Prime Minister has put his former negotiator, apparently no longer trusted as National Security Adviser, back in charge. The now Lord Frost will bring to this vital role all the finesse of doing “origami…with a blowtorch”, as the former Conservative party chairman, Lord Patten, said so eloquently.
The Prime Minister may think that fuelling grievances will win good headlines in the Daily Mail, but it will not help those facing the consequences of his ideologically driven negotiations. Far from the frictionless trade promised, businesses are threatened by extra costs and bureaucracy, and many are taking the advice of the Government’s own officials in moving activities and jobs from the UK to the EU to avoid the barriers that the Government have erected, following many from the services sector, which was completely overlooked in the deal.
It is not just trade that is a problem; taking back control of our borders without the tools to use it is another feature of the deal. Our police and security services have access to less of the information they need to stop dangerous criminals and terrorists entering the country. It does not stop there: performers no longer have the ability to work freely across the continent we share, because the Government refused visa proposals offered by the EU. We have already seen the Government, no longer bound by the EU directives that we helped to write, threaten workers’ rights, if put off by a big backlash.
What about the promises to protect environmental standards? Well, tell that to the bees now threatened by neonicotinoids, which were banned under our EU membership. And in an act of senseless educational vandalism, our young people can no longer participate in the Erasmus scheme. Instead, the new Turing proposals provide a clearly diminished offer, with less funding, a more complex application process, stretched universities left to persuade international counterparts to waive fees without the reciprocity of an exchange, and just four weeks to sort it out. It is perhaps no surprise that the Government have given no guarantee of funding for Turing in future years.
It did not have to be like this. It is the result of choices deliberately made by this Government.
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
What a fantastically niche question from my hon. Friend, and how delighted I am to be able to answer it. He will know that scoring is a matter for the OBR. As the Budget policy costings in the Budget 2021 document set out, the costing for corporation tax has been adjusted to reflect behavioural responses to an increase in the rate of corporation tax. It is important to be clear that dynamic scoring can include a number of potential behavioural responses, such as adjustments to reflect the impact on the incentive to incorporate, on profit shifting, and on investment. If he is so minded, he can find further detail on page 196 of the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook”.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and discuss that matter in more detail. As he will recognise, one of the features of the Budget was the number of UK-wide measures, but at the same time he is quite right to point to the additional £2.4 billion of Barnett consequential funding that was allocated to the devolved Administrations, which has enabled them to apply further support as a result of the fiscal strength that is offered by the UK Treasury. I am of course happy to discuss the specific point with him in more detail.
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John Glen
To clarify for the right hon. Gentleman, the equivalence granting process is an autonomous, separate process from the MOU discussion. The MOU is about a framework to evaluate the future direction of financial services across the EU and UK. I remain very ambitious for the financial services sector. The Chancellor and I are continuing to have a dialogue—with roundtables with representatives of the sector this week and next week, as well as one-to-one meetings—to ensure that we listen to the sector, and respond appropriately and ambitiously for the future.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
We have secured an unprecedented free trade agreement with the European Union—the first free trade agreement that the EU has ever reached based on zero tariffs and zero quotas. Across sectors and regions, it is a good deal that will protect jobs and investment.
Paul Blomfield [V]
The assessment conducted by the Treasury in 2018 concluded that there would be significant regional variation in the impact of any Brexit deal. We are certainly seeing that, with fishing fleets grounded, manufacturers hit with extra costs, and the Department for International Trade apparently advising businesses to move parts of their operation to the EU to avoid problems. It is clear that there will be a significant regional impact. Does the Chancellor agree that he needs to redress that regional damage from the Brexit deal? Alternatively, does he agree with the new Business Secretary’s comments in “Britannia Unchained” that regional division is an “irrelevant” debate?
Rishi Sunak
No one can doubt the Government’s commitment to uniting and levelling up across our United Kingdom, with an unprecedented infrastructure investment programme. Notably in the spending review, we announced something called the levelling-up fund, which will fund the infrastructure of everyday life in communities up and down the country, on top of our once-in-a-generation increase in infrastructure investment in road, rail and broadband that will benefit equally all parts of our United Kingdom.
Oral Answers to Questions
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
Rishi Sunak
I am not making the point that every single person can access every single scheme that the Government have put in place. That is not what I am saying; everyone will have different circumstances. What I am saying is that across the suite there is a range of support—a sum total of £280 billion-worth—designed to protect businesses, the employed, the self-employed and public services. Indeed, councils have been given large amounts of funding—billions of pounds—to help those in their communities who need it most, and they are well placed to make those decisions.
Paul Blomfield [V]
In the summer, one of my constituents opened a new bar in a previously thriving area, but she shut it on 23 October as we went into tier 3. She paid her workers for that week, but she could not get furlough support until 1 November because, as hers was a new business, her staff were not eligible for registration with the previous scheme. She is just one of many who the Chancellor will know have fallen through the gaps in his support schemes. Will he recognise the problem, act to close the loopholes and provide the support that is needed, particularly in the hospitality sector and its supply chain?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman mentioned support for the hospitality sector and bars; he will of course know that support has been provided through initiatives such as the business rates holiday, which I am sure his constituent benefited from for this entire year up until the point she was struggling, as well as the cash grants for businesses earlier in the crisis, the VAT discount, eat out to help out and the further support provided to local authorities to support the supply chain. There is a significant amount of resource to help businesses like that of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent, which I know have had an extremely difficult time.
Draft Definition of Qualifying Northern Ireland Goods (EU Exit) Regulations 2020
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to rise to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Miller.
As the Minister has said, the SI sets out the definition of ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’ in the context of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, about which the Opposition set out our concerns when it was debated in the Commons, and which was overwhelmingly amended last night in the other place by an extraordinarily broad coalition that included former leaders of the Minister’s party. They share our concern about the rule of law.
The Labour party clearly supports unfettered access of Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the UK market, so will not oppose the SI today. As the Minister said, unfettered access was a commitment made in the ‘New Decade, New Approach’ agreement to restore devolved government to Northern Ireland, and Labour strongly welcomed that. However, the Opposition have concerns about the SI, which I believe the Minister anticipated in her opening remarks, and we would welcome some further assurances on them.
Our first concern relates to the breadth of the definition of ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’—something to which the Minister herself referred. The Government appear to acknowledge that it is problematic. It will need further clarification in further legislation because that definition is not sufficiently tightly drawn to provide protections. The SI is provided for by the Henry VIII powers under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which gives the Government extraordinarily wide powers to
‘make any provision that could be made by an Act of Parliament (including modifying this Act)’.
We opposed that when that Act was debated two years, but in terms of the specifics of the SI, the wide drafting of the definition of qualifying goods is the problem, because it includes anything that is in circulation within Northern Ireland without being subject to customs control while there. However, it also includes goods processed in Northern Ireland from GB-derived goods, which are themselves subject to customs control in Northern Ireland. For example, that includes whisky imported from Scotland to Northern Ireland which might be in duty suspension in Northern Ireland, but then used to make mince pies in Belfast. That would leave those mince pies as ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’, despite the whisky used to make them being subject to customs control. Therefore, as I think the Minister acknowledged, the definition of ‘qualifying Northern Ireland goods’ is not sustainable in the longer term.
Separately, the National Crime Agency has warned that Northern Ireland could become a back door into the UK internal market, with the risk of counterfeit goods or, less likely, lower standard goods flowing into the UK. I am sure that the Minister is aware that UK farming unions have expressed concern that livestock and dairy could be disproportionately impacted by the measure. The potential problems were also raised by the Police Service of Northern Ireland in its evidence to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, when it said that the definition offered in the SI is simply not good enough.
The Opposition recognise that the Government see the SI as phase one and, as the Minister said, it is suggested that they will come up with a more refined definition in due course. Can the Minister tell us when that might be? When will we have the clarity that we all need? Can she also update us on the anti-avoidance regime, which is still to be designed and approved by the end of the year, according to the Government’s intention, to address the risk of Northern Ireland acting as a back door to Great Britain.
The Opposition are also concerned about how the SI will contribute to the weakening of the devolved Administrations’ powers. It must be read alongside the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill, clause 43 of which stops the devolved Governments imposing new kinds of checks or controls on qualifying Northern Ireland goods, and clause 11 applies the market principles of mutual recognition and non-discrimination to qualifying Northern Ireland goods. That means that the Welsh Government could not prevent something from being sold in Wales, or the UK Government could not stop something being sold in England, if it is a qualifying Northern Ireland good. If something is lawfully produced in, or imported into, Northern Ireland, it would have to be allowed to be sold in Wales, or indeed in Scotland or England. I appreciate that that was a principle within the EU internal market, and the Minister will probably cite that, but the issue here is the imbalance. In England, the Government have the power to amend the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill to prevent that consequence from arising, either by modifying the exceptions in the Bill through an SI, or by getting Parliament to legislate. Those options are not available to Wales or Scotland, and therefore an asymmetry undermines the devolved powers. Can the Minister acknowledge that is the case, and whether the Government are content with that, given that it significantly undermines local voices as expressed through the devolved Administrations?
We are also concerned about the impact on standards across the UK. Given that Northern Ireland is essentially within the EU single market for goods, any good allowed to be sold within the EU, as complying with the EU single market, must be allowed to be sold in Northern Ireland. If, for example, Wales decided to exceed the EU environmental standards applicable to vehicle emissions, the combination of the regulations in the SI and the terms of the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill would mean that Wales could not succeed, because a lower-standard vehicle would be on sale lawfully in Northern Ireland and would be a qualifying Northern Ireland good, and the mutual recognition principle in the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill would have effect. Improving standards is an ambition that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster often espouses—despite the fact that he is refusing to sign up to any kind of safety net in the current negotiations with the EU—and I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman probably would not want such consequences to arise, but the combination of the protocol, the SI and the internal market Bill make it very hard to see how Great Britain’s standards could ever exceed EU standards in matters such as environmental protection. Is that also the Minister’s understanding? If so, can she explain how the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will achieve his ambition?
Given that processed goods coming from Northern Ireland may have components originating outside of the country, does the approach outlined in the SI for qualifying goods have wider implications for the UK’s approach to rules of origin with the rest of the world?
I appreciate that the Minister said that further work was ongoing, but the Government have had more than a year since agreeing the withdrawal agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. Frankly, it is disappointing that the issues I have highlighted have not been resolved by now, so I would be grateful if the Minister could answer my questions.
Covid-19: Future UK-EU Relationship
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am just reflecting on “something else”.
I am pleased to be able to respond to the debate and remind the House that when we debated the withdrawal agreement Bill in January, the Opposition warned of the foolishness of the Government tying their hands by committing the date for the end of transition to law. We argued that unforeseen events might result in the Government needing some flexibility, although clearly no one expected a crisis on the scale that we face with covid-19. However, our amendment was rejected and the departure date was locked in law. Clearly, the Government could have changed that before 1 July, but they did not and they must live with the consequences.
We are now past the date when an extension could have been agreed. The Government did not seek one and nor did the EU propose one. That ship has sailed and, frankly, it is the wrong focus for a debate on the negotiations that we need today. The issue is not the time available to the Government, but their approach to the talks. If, instead of the motion, the SNP had tabled something seeking to protect Scottish whisky or Welsh lamb, or to avoid non-tariff barriers in manufacturing, we could have worked together on it, because the country needs the best possible agreement—now more than ever—and we hope the Government will secure that, but it is now five months since we left the European Union. We have had four rounds of formal negotiations. We have had a high-level summit between the Prime Minister and the Presidents of the European Commission, the European Council and the European Parliament. We are into our third week of intensified talks. But judging by the Government’s own statements, we have seen very little progress.
It was not supposed to be like this. Remember the election campaign? Time and again, the nation was told by the Prime Minister that he had an “oven-ready deal”. That is what the people voted for: a deal negotiated by the Prime Minister himself and signed off last October —the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration. The withdrawal agreement delivered our departure from the European Union and the political declaration set out the principles for our future relationship. The two went together: a single package. As the Prime Minister said:
“The ambition for our future friendship is contained in the revised political declaration”.—[Official Report, 19 October 2019; Vol. 666, c. 572.]
That was the deal promised to the British people. I quote from it:
“an ambitious, wide-ranging and balanced economic partnership”
with
“no tariffs, fees, charges or quantitative restrictions across all sectors”.
It was a deal that would safeguard
“workers’ rights, consumer and environmental protection”
and keep people safe with a
“broad, comprehensive and balanced security partnership”.
There was a promise that the Good Friday agreement would be protected through the proper implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol.
Those are the promises against which the Government’s deal will be measured, but it is not going well. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster chilled British business when he warned that the UK may accept tariffs on some goods if that is the price we have to pay to avoid the level playing field provisions. And let us not forget what exactly the level playing field is about: food standards, workers’ rights, environmental protection and consumer protection.
The Government’s proposals in this area have been described as “a giant step away” from the political declaration. The UK’s chief negotiator, David Frost, has said there is “fundamental disagreement” in most of the important areas. He went on to say:
“there is a big gap”.
The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), warned her successor that he will not be able to keep our people safe without access to the quantity and quality of data that is currently available through Prüm, passenger name records, the European Criminal Records Information System and SIS II, but her successor will not commit to that. Just yesterday, the Met police Brexit lead said that UK police forces’ ability to detain criminal suspects from the EU will become slower and less effective if the Government fail to secure a Brexit security deal. At the same time, Northern Ireland businesses are saying:
“we are really in a quandary as to what way to turn…We need a bit of clarity because we haven’t a clue where we’re heading—It’s like walking out into the fog.”
The Government have not even managed to negotiate the continuation of the pet passport.
The weeks ahead are crucial. The Government need to double their efforts to deliver the deal that they promised to the British people. They need to listen to business, whose voice, the CBI, said recently:
“A good deal with the EU will be just one strand of a national recovery plan as the UK responds to the coronavirus pandemic, but it will be one of the most important for the future of our economy, jobs and livelihoods.”
They need to listen to those reeling from the Government’s announcement on the border arrangements, which left the chief executive of the Road Haulage Association saying that he was
“completely at a loss to understand how this framework can be achieved by 1 January 2021.”
They should listen to the TUC, which has called on the Government to
“prioritise negotiating a deal with the EU that guarantees good jobs, rights and other protections rather than a deal with the US that stands to undermine these standards.”
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
We have already heard how important this decision is, so will the hon. Gentleman elaborate on where the Labour party is? Why are the Labour Benches empty? Where are his Back Benchers? Why are they silent on this important issue?
Paul Blomfield
I have elaborated our position clearly: we expect the Government to deliver on the deal that they promised the British people. I understand the anxiety among those on the Conservative Benches when they see how the talks are going and see that they—those who were elected on that pledge—may not be able to turn to their constituents and say that they have done that job.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
That really is not good enough from the hon. Gentleman. Not one Labour Back Bencher is down to speak in this important debate. They may not care about these issues, but our constituents do. As part of the official Opposition, surely he should be doing better than this?
Paul Blomfield
There is great concern and great appetite to have a serious discussion about the negotiations on the future relationship with the European Union. We have brought the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to the House twice through urgent questions when he had refused to report to Parliament. Some of my colleagues may have anticipated that this debate would not be the one we needed to have, but instead would be framed by the leader of the SNP at Westminster as being about independence, as he did in his final words. We want a serious discussion about the negotiations.
The Government should also listen to voices in every part of our country, and they need to engage effectively with the devolved Administrations—
Paul Blomfield
I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman may want to hear my point.
Stephen Flynn
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does he agree that the intransigence of his party on this issue is perhaps why it received 42% of the vote in Scotland in 2010, but just 18% in the general election of 2019?
Paul Blomfield
The nature of these interventions indicates why it does not seem that the SNP is serious about having a debate about the actual negotiations on which the future of our country is going to be so dependent. It is all about point scoring, not protecting jobs and protecting the economy.
The Government should listen more effectively to those voices of the devolved Administrations and recognise that the Joint Ministerial Committee is not working. It needs to be put on a formal footing, with its decisions properly recorded and respected. The agreement reached with the European Union will affect the nations and regions of the UK differently, and the devolved Administrations will be on the frontline of delivering it. They must be properly consulted and proper regard must be given to their views. It is not a question of vetoes, but of respect for the devolution settlements in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as the Government negotiate with and repatriate powers from the European Union. We need—I make this point both to the Government and to the leader of the SNP at Westminster —a spirit of constructive partnership between the four Governments of the United Kingdom, rather than division.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making some important points. To expand on that last point, the concern for the devolved Administrations must be not simply with the UK-EU deal, but with how they are involved in all free trade agreements and in organisations such as the Trade Remedies Authority, with how those deals are put together, and with how the Administrations are engaged and consulted? My real fear is that that will not happen.
Paul Blomfield
My hon. Friend is right to have that fear because the experience over the past months demonstrates that there is not the real consultation that there needs to be. The Government are playing with the future of our country if they do not respect, engage effectively and have regard to the views of all the devolved Administrations.
There are just five months left until we leave the transitional period—months in which we are already facing the biggest hit on jobs and livelihoods in our lifetime as a result of covid-19. The people of this country expect the Government to do everything possible to mitigate that damage, not to add to it. The Government will not be forgiven if we reach the end of the transition without a deal, or with a deal that falls short of the ambition that they signed up to in the political declaration. That was their promise to the British people, and it is that on which they will be judged.
Pete Wishart
I am not giving way to the hon. Gentleman as he took half an hour, sorry.
This is where we are in Scotland, and I thank Conservative Members from the bottom of my heart for helping me in my ambition and quest to deliver independence for Scotland.
It is so unnecessary. There are a couple of ways that we could do these things. We could have a separation of the ways peacefully and amicably, respecting each other, or Conservative Members could do the thing of shouting us down, disparaging us and trying to take the powers of the Scottish Parliament. I suggest this to the hon. Gentleman and hon. Ladies on the Conservative Benches: why don’t we do it the friendly way? I will tell them something. They won their Brexit; have it. Please have it. If that is what England wants, please have it. I will be the first person to applaud them, cheer them and wish them all the best. We do not want it. We don’t want it—that is the simple thing. Why can we not both have what we both want? Why can’t they have their Brexit, have their splendid isolation and have their fantastic trade deals that they have in the bag? What we will do is reflect on what the Scottish people want, which is to be an independent nation within the European Union.
I am here to sum up today’s proceedings, so let us see if I can make a little bit of a job just about that. There have been some fantastic contributions. Looking around, even the Tories, with their disparaging remarks about Scotland, have been pretty interesting. [Interruption.] They have been great. They have been fantastic for us and we are so looking forward to putting a compendium together.
The opening speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) was a trademark tour de force accurately summarising the situation in and condition of Scotland: talking about the power grab, the threat to the Scottish Parliament in terms of the devolution settlement, talking about where the Scottish people are in relation to Brexit, and saying why it is necessary to have an extension to Brexit. That is what he laid down so very effectively in his speech today.
We then had some fantastic speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), for Stirling (Alyn Smith), for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson). From Glasgow to Aberdeenshire to Lothian, there were fantastic speeches from my hon. Friends. “They do not speak for Scotland.” I do not know which one of the disparaging remarks that was from. But my hon. Friends speak on behalf of nearly every single community in Scotland. We have 80% of the Members representing Scotland in this House. From Ayrshire to Argyll to Aberdeenshire to everywhere, we have SNP Members who will put the views of their constituents. On no issue do they speak on behalf of those people more than on Brexit. Scotland voted overwhelmingly to reject Brexit. Every single constituency in Scotland voted to remain in the EU. What my hon. Friends did here today was to stand up for their community, represent their views, and make sure that they were properly represented and that their voice was heard. They did a fantastic job of that today.
Then, of course, there were the Conservative speeches. I am not going to say any more about them, because that was just great. But there is something I have observed—[Hon. Members: “More!”] Okay. They are saying, “More.” How about this, then? I have been in this House for 20 years and I have never observed a Conservative party quite like it: the new model Conservatives, the red wall Tories, the Commons commandos—how about that one? That is the way to describe them, or Boris’s Brexit bombardiers! How about that one? I cannot tell them apart. They are all the same. They are nearly all male and they are all standing there. They all beat the Labour party and they are all really thrilled about that. Well done. Gosh, we tanked the Labour party 10 years ago! It is not a big deal or a big feat.
The poor hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), sitting there having to take all this. I actually feel sorry for him. The Labour party could not even be bothered to turn up. It was just appalling. For goodness’ sake, they must have something to say about Brexit. Even if they turned up and just asked to open the window or something, at least they would have been on the record, but they could not be bothered to even do that. Does he want to say something? I’ll give way to him.
Pete Wishart
He doesn’t. I do really feel sorry for the hon. Gentleman. There is the one Scottish Labour Member, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), who always has lots to say about the Union. He is not even here today—I would have thought that he might at least have turned up.
Budget Resolutions
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(4 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Of the many learning points from the current coronavirus crisis, one stands out, which is that, in a crisis, people turn to the Government. Over the past 10 years, the capacity of the state to respond to crises has been deeply weakened by the funding decisions made for our public services, and it is a position that the Budget has left essentially unchanged. Capital spending is welcome, but, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, the revenue position is a completely different picture. Across the public sector as a whole, real-terms spending per person will remain about 8% below 2010 levels in the next financial year. We will pay the price for that, because we are facing this crisis with an NHS that is already stretched to the limit. Its resilience is corroded, and it has too little spare capacity. We had the warning signs—regular winter crises, patient stacked up in corridors—but not enough was done about them.
Beyond the NHS, the crisis in social care, which many Members have referred to, has clearly been deepening—not addressed but made worse by the disproportionate cuts faced by local government. Councils such as Sheffield have lost more than half their funding from central Government over the past 10 years.
On his accession to the job he currently holds, the Prime Minister said:
“And so I am announcing now—on the steps of Downing Street—that we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all, and with a clear plan we have prepared”.
He might have even used the words “oven ready”. Eight months on, it is clear that he never had a plan and his Budget does not have a plan.
I would like to raise a different point now, because while I welcome the measures in the Budget to support small businesses through the coronavirus crisis, they do not go far enough. Steve and Sara contacted me over the weekend. They run the popular Harland Café in my constituency—one of hundreds of cafés, bars and restaurants that employ thousands of people. They were worried then about the future of their business, and that was before the Government’s decision today—not telling them to close, but telling people not to go through their doors, hanging them out to dry without clarity and without the opportunity to draw on business continuity insurance. The Health Secretary was unable to answer the questions on those issues a short while ago, or on the other help that the hospitality sector will need. I do hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, when he winds up, will be able to go further, because businesses such as Steve and Sara’s, and thousands more across the country, are on the line.
At the other end of the spectrum in terms of scale are our universities, which are key to the economy in Sheffield. We can already anticipate the impact of the coronavirus on their income. We have 15,000 international students between our two universities, worth over £210 million a year to the local economy. More than 7,000 are from China. Many of those planning to come this year will not be able to. If we lose, say, half of them, our two universities could lose £50 million in fees. Across the country, a 50% reduction in international students starting in September could produce a loss of £1.9 billion. Nobody has commented on that, so will the Economic Secretary also say what plans the Government have to support our universities?
Tax Avoidance and Evasion
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
John McDonnell
I want to pay tribute to a number of my colleagues in this House who have consistently raised this issue, and my hon. Friend is one of them. When we had the debate very early on—in, I think, 2012 or 2013—a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend, started describing what was taking place as tax avoidance on an industrial scale. That is exactly what has happened, and it has not got better; it has got worse consistently.
At the moment, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is saying that the tax gap is about £35 billion, and it defines that as the difference between its estimate of the tax that should be paid and what is paid. But we know, and HMRC accepts this, that that does not include many of the abuses of corporate profit shifting, and HMRC acknowledges
“many sources of uncertainty and potential error”
in its own calculations. So other experts have suggested—this is the point my hon. Friend is making—that the tax gap could be as high as £90 billion overall. So let us look at who we know is not paying their taxes.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Each year I organise an annual community consultation, and each year there has been growing anger among my constituents about the sense that they are paying their fair share from very ordinary incomes while the level of corporate tax avoidance has been growing out of control as successive Conservative Governments have failed to step up to the mark in tackling it. We are apparently losing over £1 billion of tax due on UK earnings from just five of the biggest US tech firms; that is money that could pay for more than 42,000 rooms in care homes for people who desperately need them. So does my right hon. Friend agree that there is enormous public support for tough action on corporate tax avoidance?
Mr Speaker
Order. I can put the hon. Gentleman’s name down if he wishes to make a speech, but we must have shorter interventions.
Special Educational Needs and Disability Funding
Paul Blomfield Excerpts(4 years, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing her first Westminster Hall debate on this very important topic, and on her speech, in which she is making powerful points. We have all experienced the difficulties of dealing with parents and their children who have been tragically let down. On the strategy, does she recognise the need for better resourcing, and for greater understanding of all the conditions that people present with? For example, pathological demand avoidance, on the autistic spectrum, is recognised in some areas as a specific condition requiring resource and targeted support, but not in others. It would be helpful if the national strategy ensures that we are consistent across the country in identifying the range of needs and responding to them appropriately.
Munira Wilson
Absolutely. A national strategy would address this point about variability and joining up all the services required.
To conclude, every child deserves the best possible start in life. The life chances of children with SEND depend upon appropriate and adequate support, and intervention at the right time. We must realise the ambition of the Children and Families Act 2014 to put young people at the heart of SEND provision. We cannot keep cutting corners and expecting hard-pressed local authorities to pick up the pieces. It is time for the Government to step up, and to provide the necessary funding and a joined-up strategy.