Tag: Jesse Norman

  • Jesse Norman – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    Jesse Norman – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Transport

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jesse Norman on 2014-05-01.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what steps he is taking to encourage safer cycling.

    Mr Robert Goodwill

    In addition to the £278m of funding directly for cycling in England, we continue to support Bikeability cycle training for children. It provides trainees with skills suited to the road, but also explains the importance of obeying the Highway Code, and sharing the road. Some councils provide free or subsidised training to adults.

  • Jesse Norman – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    Jesse Norman – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Jesse Norman on 2014-05-06.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what the total value is of Common Agricultural Policy payments to farms in Herefordshire in the last five years for which data are available.

    George Eustice

    Our records do not currently distinguish between farms and other claimants; the figure provided relates to all eligible claimants paid (including farms).

    The total value of all Common Agricultural Policy claims paid by the Rural Payments Agency and the Forestry Commission to all claimants with a registered address in Herefordshire during the 5 years up to 15 October 2013 was €261,476,438.25.

  • Jesse Norman – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson Returning as Prime Minister

    Jesse Norman – 2022 Comments on Boris Johnson Returning as Prime Minister

    The comments made by Jesse Norman, the Conservative MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire, on Twitter on 21 October 2022.

    There are several very good potential candidates for Conservative leader. But choosing Boris [Johnson] now would be — and I say this advisedly — an absolutely catastrophic decision.

  • Jesse Norman – 2022 Statement on the Role of the Chinese Consul General

    Jesse Norman – 2022 Statement on the Role of the Chinese Consul General

    The statement made by Jesse Norman, the Ministers for the Americas and Overseas Territories, in the House of Commons on 20 October 2022.

    I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question and deeply aware of the strength of feeling in this House and the other place about the scenes of violence at the consulate of the People’s Republic of China in Manchester on Sunday afternoon. I am happy to provide an update on our response. You have been kind enough, Mr Speaker, to indicate that you will allow me to speak for a couple more minutes to set out the position.

    As the House will know, on Sunday afternoon officials were in touch with Greater Manchester police regarding the incident. On Monday, officials spoke to the Chinese embassy to express our very serious concerns at the reports and demand an explanation. FCDO officials were clear that all diplomats and consular staff based in the UK must respect UK laws and regulations. On Tuesday, I announced in this House that the Foreign Secretary had issued a summons to express His Majesty’s Government’s deep concern at the incident and demand an explanation for the apparent actions of the staff at the consulate general.

    Following my statement, the Chinese chargé d’affaires attended a summons at the FCDO in his capacity as acting ambassador. For the avoidance of any doubt, I should say that the Chinese ambassador is currently out of the UK and it is standard practice in such circumstances to summon the chargé d’affaires. I should also be clear that receiving an official summons from the Foreign Secretary is not, as has been described, a light rap on the knuckles but the delivery of a stern message, well understood within the context of diplomatic protocol. It is customary for senior officials to deliver such messages. These summons are not an invitation for an ambassador to have an audience with the Foreign Secretary or Ministers; in any case, given that the chargé d’affaires was involved, it was doubly appropriate that they should be delivered by a senior official.

    In the summons the official set out that peaceful protest is a fundamental part of British society and that everyone in the United Kingdom has the right to express their views peacefully and without fear of violence. He reiterated our clear expectation that diplomatic and consular staff should conduct themselves in accordance with UK law. We have made it absolutely clear to the Chinese embassy that the apparent behaviour of consulate general officials during the incident, as it appears from the footage—more of which is coming out, even as we discuss this—is completely unacceptable.

    The independent police investigation is now under way. Greater Manchester police have been clear that there are many strands to what is a complex and sensitive inquiry and that it may take some time. As the Foreign Secretary has said, we await the details of the investigation, but in the meantime I have instructed our ambassador to deliver a clear message directly to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Beijing about the depth of concern at the apparent actions by consulate general staff. Let me be clear that if the police determine that there are grounds to charge any officials, we would expect the Chinese consulate to waive immunity for those officials. If it does not, diplomatic consequences will follow.

    Finally, allow me to reiterate to the House the value that we place on the Hong Kong community in the UK. When the national security law was imposed on Hong Kong in 2020, this Government acted immediately in announcing the scheme for British national overseas status holders and their dependants. Since then, more than 100,000 people and their families have made the decision to move to the UK to live, work and make it their new home. I want to put on the record, here, now, again and officially, a reaffirmation of our unwavering support for them and our commitment to their safety. They are most welcome here. Recognising the interest that this issue has across the House, the Government will seek to update the House on this matter next week.

  • Jesse Norman – 2022 Statement on the Chinese Consulate and Attack on Hong Kong Protesters

    Jesse Norman – 2022 Statement on the Chinese Consulate and Attack on Hong Kong Protesters

    The statement made by Jesse Norman, the Minister for the Americas and Overseas Territories, in the House of Commons on 18 October 2022.

    Top of the morning to you, Mr Speaker, and thank you very much indeed for allowing us to have this urgent question on a topic of enormous importance. May I start by recognising, thanking and welcoming my hon. Friend to her position as Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee?

    As the House will know, His Majesty’s Government are extremely concerned at the apparent scenes of violence at the consulate of the People’s Republic of China in Manchester on Sunday afternoon. Greater Manchester police had been pre-notified of the demonstration and intervened to restore order; we are grateful to them for their action. I understand that Greater Manchester police have launched an investigation to establish the facts of the incident.

    The Foreign Secretary has issued a summons to the Chinese chargé d’affaires at the Chinese embassy in London to express His Majesty’s Government’s deep concern at the incident and to demand an explanation for the actions of the consulate staff. It would be inappropriate to go into further detail until the investigation has concluded, but let me be clear that, as this House has always recognised, peaceful protest is a fundamental part of British society and our way of life. All those on our soil have the right to express their views peacefully without fear of violence. FCDO officials expressed that clearly to the Chinese embassy yesterday. We will continue to work with the Home Office and Greater Manchester police colleagues to decide on appropriate next steps.

    Alicia Kearns

    Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this UQ and for the personal interest you have taken in this over the last few days.

    On Sunday, peaceful protesters gathered outside the Chinese consulate to campaign for human rights in Hong Kong. What we saw was the Chinese consul-general then ripping down posters during a peaceful protest. There soon followed grievous bodily harm against Hong Kongers, one of whom was hospitalised for taking part in that peaceful protest. Some were then dragged on to consulate territory for a further beating by officials who have been recognised to be members of the Chinese Communist party. We cannot allow the CCP to import its beating of protesters and silencing of free speech, and its utter failure time and again to allow protest on British soil.

    This is a chilling escalation. We have seen continued persecution of the Uyghur, Tibetans, Hong Kongers and all those who come to our country to seek refuge. What took place on Sunday suggests they cannot seek refuge here and have their voices heard, and our job is to make sure their voices are not silenced.

    I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that the ambassador has been summoned. I am surprised the meeting has not taken place so far. Will he please confirm when it will be taking place and that he will update the House thereafter? Will he also confirm that any Chinese official involved in the beatings will be prosecuted and that, if they cannot be prosecuted, they will be expelled from this country within the week, and what the Government are doing to protect protests? That is a fundamental right and we must uphold it at home if we are to have any chance of upholding it abroad.

    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.

  • Jesse Norman – 2022 Speech at the Atlantic Future Forum

    Jesse Norman – 2022 Speech at the Atlantic Future Forum

    The speech made by Jesse Norman, the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, in New York on 29 September 2022.

    National and Economic Security Policy in a Geopolitical Age: the UK’s approach

    Thank you very much indeed, Samira, who can follow that extraordinary exchange we had just had between Eric Schmidt and General Sir Patrick Sanders. What an education that was in itself and what a delight it is to listen to and speak to you on this fascinating topic.

    I am responsible in the British government for the diplomatic interface with the technology of the kind we are talking about, it could be defence and security, or it could be other kinds and I will touch upon them a little bit later in my talk. Ladies and gentlemen, as you have heard and know this is not a world or a time for a grand strategy. We face a strained international order, characterised by state competition and mounting security threats as well as the kinds of non-state actors we have seen in recent years. As societies and economies have become more complex and more interconnected, new vulnerabilities have emerged and been exploited and they in turn damage the integrity of the open economic system which has underpinned our prosperity since the 1990s. We should think not in terms of two geographies, Europe and the Far East but also a third in the Middle East and that it going to impose new stresses and strains on that system.

    Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought that reality into the sharpest relief as we have just been hearing. This weaponisation of connectivity – whether grain or gas – has driven soaring global energy prices and plunged millions of the world’s most vulnerable into hunger and famine. Many miles from the theatre of war potentially into hunger and famine . As Eric said this is the first broadband war, this is not just in technologies but in mind-set and leadership. Technology has been central to the response. But this comes in both directions, but the unity and resolve in Great Britain and United States, European Allies and others in responding to such an act of aggression has been very striking. We have imposed major macro-economic cost on President Putin, frustrated his war machine and strengthened Ukrainian leverage and power. And we know it caught Russia off-guard: our sanctions have already seen Russia facing its first external debt default potentially for a century. Above all, it demonstrated that the ‘political west’ has the economic weight to defend global stability and promote the values we cherish – openness, sovereignty and freedom.

    Now this systematic competition that we have described is intensifying, and is growing in complexity. The geopolitical order is being superseded or placed within a wider new global order of opinion and connectivity and narrative. Our mission on economic security is clear and crystallising – at home and with partners, and I propose to touch on three aspects of that mission.

    The first is learning from our Russia/Ukraine experience in order to do more to resist aggression and coercion. That means for us focusing on deepening co-operation with G7 allies to build a new economic security mechanism; what the Prime Minster has called an ‘Economic NATO’ that will improve our collective ability to assess, deter, and respond to threats from aggressive powers, including economic coercion. In the simplest terms if the economy of one partner is being targeted by an aggressive regime we should be prepared and we will be prepared through this new mechanism to support them.
    Having such defensive economic measures alongside traditional measures of resistance in a state of readiness builds credible asymmetric deterrence to aggression including threats of military force. It underscores our commitment to a world in which respect for international rules and sovereignty is the bedrock of good relations, good business and healthy society.

    Secondly, we must build our own resilience to shocks – this has been a big theme of the last 24 hours – whether they are organic or come from outside. The most urgent part of this task is to build redundancies and to end our dependence on authoritarian states who would weaponise our very openness and integration and connectivity to hurt us. We have shown unprecedented resolve in this respect – divesting away from Russian energy supply is a signal of upmost importance in showing our willingness to bear short term economic costs in defending a sovereign free state from unprovoked aggression.

    We are also getting ahead in other possible areas of strategic dependence. Whether it is vital new technologies or the critical minerals that will power those technologies and support then. We are working to strengthen trusted supply chains that can be relied on whatever the geopolitical weather. Supply chains that can operate on a cost basis that allows them to be effective, wide spread and support our wider aims. That will mean helping allies pursue and consolidate strategic advantage – a practice of “friend shoring” across key sectors. And as we think to our friends, there is no closer or more trusted bond than that between our two countries the United Kingdom and United States of America. It is often said that democracies are slower to respond to threats but more resilient over time. We must change that, we must be quicker to respond and more resilient. We must be highly rapid in our response in a highly changing environment as Eric Schmit has pointed out.

    Finally, we must learn in this new world to “play offence” even better than we are at the moment. That means not to abandon but to practice and exemplify the values we are defending. That is to promote the liberal international trading order, whose transformative benefits we have seen for many decades across the world. And to be a dynamic, reliable and a trustworthy partner. This applies to the terms of trade. We are at a globally high standard. The free trade agreements we are developing are of the highest quality when it comes to transparency and trust. And our new independent trade policy allows us to do more for emerging economies including through the Developing Countries Trading Scheme – a scheme that will offer 65 developing countries greater opportunities from exporting to the UK.

    It also means extending our collective economic offer to the world – in the sectors that matter most to them, and without the strings of coercion we have seen our adversaries use. At the highest level, the G7 Partnership for Infrastructure and Investment (PGII) is an important leap forward. PGII will mobilise $600bn of reliable finance for infrastructure investment in low and middle-income countries over the next five years. What it shows is that combating future adversaries is not just liberties as a value itself but it is something we must turn our strength to and our capacity to innovate in support for the global good – in a whole range of sectors from vaccines to the next generation of energy production and many others. And these are sectors I will be focusing my team on within government in the coming months.

    Ladies and gentlemen, the war of the future is the war of hearts and minds as well as weapons. If it was ever thus, it is more so now than it ever before. But we need to build and maintain that trust. And we will. Thank you very much indeed.

  • Jesse Norman – 2022 Speech on Channel 4 Privatisation

    Jesse Norman – 2022 Speech on Channel 4 Privatisation

    The speech made by Jesse Norman, the Conservative MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire, in the House of Commons on 14 June 2022.

    It has been a good debate, but I must say that I am not persuaded by many of the arguments that have been put forward, even by my distinguished colleagues, the former Chairs of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins). It is a pity that the consultation was carried out in the way that it was. For a subject as vexed and contentious as this, it would have been more appropriate for at least the individual and organisational contributions to have been if not published, then at least digested in more detail and reflected.

    If the Government are committed to exploring all the options, as has been recognised by many hon. Members on both sides of the House and as I think it is fair to say the Government have said, it is important that there should be an options paper to show which options have been considered. I was sad to see that the option of mutualisation has not been considered, because it has been effective in other areas. Welsh Water, which is in many ways the best of the water companies, is a mutual company limited by guarantee. I still hope that mutualisation will be considered.

    The truth is that, notwithstanding some of the concerns that have been raised, Channel 4 is not a problem, and this measure comes at a time of severe and rising concern among people of this country about the cost of living, inflation and slow growth, and, in policy circles, about the loss of productivity. It is not just that Channel 4 is in rude health—although, as has been pointed out, revenues can go up and down over time—and has been sustained by its huge growth in digital advertising and its remarkable ability to reach interesting younger audiences; it is also that it is a highly dynamic organisation and a highly managerially innovative organisation. Therefore, for the Government to start to panic now about what its future advertising revenues may be is to rule out the possibility that diverse, interesting, engaging and innovative responses may be undertaken by this innovative team.

    It is also strange for a Conservative Government to wish to sell off a business in the face of competition, rather than embracing and welcoming that competition and expecting the business to fight its corner. Let me remind the House that the intellectual property does not go anywhere. The fact that it is not trapped in Channel 4 does not mean that it does not reside within independent production companies, and that creates the dynamic tension and energy that has always sustained the sector.

    I am afraid that I regard this as an unnecessary attempt to address a non-problem at a time of much wider concern. I refer hon. Members and the Government to the ancient Conservative principle: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

    Kevin Brennan

    On the point about intellectual property, is it not interesting that the people behind some of the most successful productions in recent years, such as Michaela Coel, have refused to go to streamers such as Netflix because they insist on keeping the intellectual property, rather than letting it reside with the British small production companies, writers and creators who are responsible for it?

    Jesse Norman

    The hon. Member makes an interesting and fair point. Of course, if advertising revenue were so unattractive, the rest of the market would not be piling into it. At the same time, no matter who the owner of the enterprise will be, they will not be immune from wider inflation in programming costs. That is the nature of the business, and the question is what innovative and constructive responses will be undertaken by the management team to address that.

    The plan is also bad economics from a public standpoint. The House will know that I spent a couple of years as a Treasury Minister, including during the period the Secretary of State talked about when all the support was given to the cultural sector, and I think it is bad economics. Even if the constraints were relaxed in the way that has been described, the revenue to be derived would be only, on a net basis, in the order of £500 million to £1 billion. My successor, the present Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Julian Knight), has pointed out that that is a drop in the ocean compared with the wider problem. At a 4% interest rate, £500 million amounts to £20 million a year. Are we really going to give up all the control, energy, drive and impetus that exists in Channel 4 now, and the £200 million of directed programming from independent production companies that comes from that, in return for the equivalent of a £20 million annuity? I do not think that makes any economic sense at all.

    Overall, this is not a Conservative proposal. What matters in this case is the quality of the ownership. Channel 4 has an independent ownership structure; it happens to be owned by the state, but its ownership structure has made it resilient to political pressure and able to commission highly innovative, risky and interesting forms of programming, for which we celebrate it.

    Robin Millar

    Will my right hon. Friend give way?

    Jesse Norman

    I cannot, as I do not have much time, but I may take my hon. Friend’s intervention later.

    It is not a Conservative proposal to sell Channel 4, and even if it was sold now does anyone really think the value generated would not itself be a reflection of the proposed doom scenario in advertising revenues because of the way in which future cash flow works? The key issue here is that we should support an enterprise that itself supports independent production companies, many of them in our nations and regions, that proactively supports disabled people, that supports the Union, and that supports levelling up. That is what Channel 4 does.

    I have no doubt that Channel 4 can be further improved and enhanced, and I see its next episode as a down payment on the next generation of its own thinking about how its module could be further leveraged and enhanced, but at the moment it is doing a superb job. We should not sell it; we should proceed and support it in any way we can in the future.

  • Jesse Norman – 2021 Statement on the Emissions Trading Scheme

    Jesse Norman – 2021 Statement on the Emissions Trading Scheme

    The statement made by Jesse Norman, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on 5 July 2021.

    The Government are announcing today that legislation will be introduced at the earliest opportunity to allow a VAT zero rate to apply to trades in UK emissions trading scheme allowances within the VAT Terminal Markets Order (S11973/173) (TMO).

    A UK Emissions Trading Scheme (UK ETS) replaced the UK’s participation in the EU ETS on 1 January 2021. The scheme has been established to increase the climate ambition of the UK’s carbon pricing policy, while mitigating the risk of carbon leakage through free allowances.

    Market participants can bid for UK ETS allowances on the UK auction platform or can acquire futures contracts in UK ETS allowances on the secondary market.

    The TMO permits VAT zero rating for transactions on terminal commodity markets. It is seen as an important VAT trade facilitation measure by those involved in trading commodity futures contracts, where often on these markets there are very substantial volumes of transactions over short periods of time. The zero-rating relief provided by the TMO avoids the administrative and cash flow burdens of accounting for VAT and should have no effect on the VAT amount collected at the final stage of consumption.

    I can confirm today the treatment will be provided from the time when these important trades commenced in May.

  • Jesse Norman – 2021 Statement on E-Commerce and VAT Changes

    Jesse Norman – 2021 Statement on E-Commerce and VAT Changes

    The statement made by Jesse Norman, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, in the House of Commons on 13 May 2021.

    The Government will be introducing changes to simplify the way VAT is administered for some goods sold between Northern Ireland and the EU, and some low-value imports into Northern Ireland from 1 July 2021 (otherwise known as e-commerce VAT changes). This mirrors an WSEU-wide reform, which the UK is implementing in Northern Ireland in line with the obligations set out under the Northern Ireland protocol, where EU VAT rules with respect to goods will continue to apply in Northern Ireland. However, Northern Ireland is, and will remain, part of the UK’s VAT system.

    The overall aim of the e-commerce VAT changes is to facilitate the declaration and payment of VAT for (a) sales of goods to consumers between Northern Ireland and the EU; and (b) low-value goods, where they are in consignments valued up to £135 (€150), supplied to consumers in Northern Ireland from non-EU countries, including from Great Britain. The changes will affect businesses and online marketplaces that are involved in these transactions. The consumer experience overall will not change.

    On 1 January 2021, the UK introduced a set of new VAT rules for the imports of low-value goods into Northern Ireland from outside the UK and the EU. The EU’s e-commerce reforms mirror many of those changes. Therefore, the Government consider that there will only be minimal changes for businesses selling imported goods to customers in Northern Ireland.

    From a UK perspective, the e-commerce changes mean that:

    A new single EU-wide distance selling threshold of £8,818 (€10,000) will be introduced for the sales of goods and services in the EU. The threshold will only apply to supplies of EU-located goods to and from Northern Ireland, which means that, EU suppliers who exceed the threshold will have to register for VAT in the United Kingdom if they wish to sell goods to consumers in Northern Ireland;

    Online marketplaces will be liable for collecting and accounting for VAT on goods supplied in Northern Ireland, under certain circumstances; and

    Low-value consignment relief, which relieves import VAT on consignments of goods of up to £15, will be removed fully in Northern Ireland and across the EU.

    Alongside these changes, two new IT systems will be introduced: one for accounting and collecting VAT on sales of goods between Northern Ireland and the EU—the one-stop shop; and the other for accounting and collecting VAT on imports of non-excise goods from non-EU countries, where they are in consignments that do not exceed £135 (€150) in value—the import one-stop shop. Both systems are designed to reduce burdens on business and facilitate the collection of VAT on sales of goods across Northern Ireland and the EU; and are optional for businesses and online marketplaces to use.

    The UK will be taking a phased approach to the introduction of these IT systems. HMRC have today published guidance on gov.uk setting out what this will mean for businesses. However, in many cases, if businesses and online marketplaces opt not to register to use these systems, there will be no change in how they declare and pay for VAT on their sales of goods to consumers in Northern Ireland and EU member states.

    The Government will legislate for these changes shortly.

  • Jesse Norman – 2021 Speech to HMRC Virtual Stakeholder Conference

    Jesse Norman – 2021 Speech to HMRC Virtual Stakeholder Conference

    The speech made by Jesse Norman, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, on 21 April 2021.

    Thank you everyone for coming along and joining us today. My name is Jesse Norman, I’m the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I’m responsible for tax policy at the Treasury and also for HMRC.

    And what an astonishing organisation that is.

    Tax is absolutely at the centre of economic activity and behaviour. You may know I wrote a book a few years ago about Adam Smith, who was a commissioner of customs in Scotland and wrote memorably and incredibly thoughtfully about the basic principles of taxation. And it’s a complete delight to be able to embed myself not just in the policy, but also in understanding of the operations of HMRC as well.

    My job has been around, as I have discovered, for over 300 years. In fact, the first Financial Secretary, then known as the Junior Secretary of the Treasury, was Thomas Harley MP. He was from Herefordshire and, as you will know, I’m the Member of Parliament for Hereford and South Herefordshire. So there’s a point of continuity there.

    He got that job in summer 1711, I’m sure owing to his astonishing personal merit and hard work, but also possibly not unconnected to the fact that he was the cousin of the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. Anyway, one of the things he famously had to do in his life was to crack down on smuggling and on embezzlement. There was one occasion when he was tackling a brewery owner from Deal, who had been accused of engaging in fraud and abuse – failing to provide the right amount of beer that was expected by the thirsty sailors of the naval fleet. How little things have changed, these days, in terms of the willingness of a few people to conduct fraud and abuse! So, we have that precedent to rely on.

    Let me just say, if I may, a couple of things about this event. You, as stakeholders, play an extraordinarily important part in the wide picture of taxation. I hope you have noticed that, since I have become FST, we have really bent over backwards collectively, on the political side and also on the HMRC side, to try to engage and work with stakeholders. The feedback that you have given and continue to give to officials at HMRC, to the senior leadership team there and to me and my colleagues, ministers and other MPs, is absolutely essential to the effective working of the overall system.

    So I want to start by saying thank you for that. Thank you for saying when it goes wrong and, even more, thank you for saying when we got things right, because of course it’s also really important to know when we’re on the right track with policy or with operational changes.

    I want to talk if I may today about three specific areas. The first is what you might call the wider collaboration, the policy and the schemes that HMRC has put in place, and the work they have done with stakeholders through the whole Covid-19 pandemic. The second is what the future looks like for the organisation and for taxpayers more generally; and then thirdly, what our experience has been and how that experience might in turn shape how we as a government, through the tax system and through Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, think about how we respond to future crises of this kind, or indeed other major economic and epidemiological or health events.

    So, let’s start where we should, with what we’ve been through in the past 12 months. I will never get tired of saying what an astonishing job HMRC and Treasury officials have done in their response to the Covid pandemic. I think when people come to write the history books, they will see it as exemplary.

    And of course, that in itself has relied on the extraordinary difference that you, our stakeholders, have given in helping HMRC to test and improve the support schemes they put in place. This includes consulting with them, helping to tip them off when something is going wrong, helping them to manage demand, or the vital element of making sure that taxpayers know what they should be doing, when they should be doing it and know of the schemes that we have put in place to help them through this incredibly difficult period.

    I am under no illusions about the importance of your involvement as stakeholders in administering the support schemes. I’m extremely grateful and I thank you for it.

    You probably know that the Job Retention Scheme alone has paid out more than £53 billion over the period; that’s protected 11.2 million jobs, an astonishing intervention. If someone said at the beginning of last year, “Great news Jesse, in three months’ time, you’ll be responsible for an organisation that’ll be protecting 11 million jobs and spending the eye-watering sum of £53 billion”, I would never have even remotely imagined it. None of us would. None of us did and that is something that I’ll come to later on.

    But these extraordinary measures are testimony to the amazing energy and the very rapid, ingenious imaginative response that’s been put in place by both the Treasury and HM Revenue & Customs. And that’s not even to mention the Self-employed Income Support Scheme, which has issued almost £20 billion to a further 2.7 million people. And of course, there’s been a host of other tax easements and deferrals, grant schemes, and all the rest sitting alongside that, and that’s made an incredible difference.

    All these things have helped to keep the fabric of what Adam Smith called our commercial society in place. I think we’ve learned hugely as a country about how to deal with pandemic crises, and if we now can get through what is going to be the greatest economic crisis that this country has faced outside wartime in our recorded history, going back to Thomas Harley in the beginning of the 18th century, then that will be an amazing achievement.

    So massive thanks. Thank you for all you’ve done and thank you for all that I know you will continue to do in supporting the work that we are doing.

    Now, I talked about the people who we’ve been able to help through schemes, through the furlough scheme to the self-employed scheme and all the other tax easements and other schemes that we put in place. The vast majority we have been able to help, I am thrilled to say. But it’s also true, and I am acutely conscious, that we have not been able to help everyone in the way that they might have wanted. As you know, I have talked to many Members of Parliament and I’ve talked to many of the wider stakeholder groups. I’ve really tried to lean forward into this issue, to think of ways to understand the concerns that they have, to understand the issues as they might present themselves and then to try to push officials and systems to work as hard and effectively as we can on how to solve them.

    You have helped us think our way through how we can improve the schemes, how we can include as many people as possible – and also how we can do so while protecting taxpayers—that is, all of us who pay taxes up and down this country—from the risk of fraud, error and abuse that the schemes might be vulnerable to, if they were not properly managed.

    So, if we take the changes we announced at the Budget, the Self-employed scheme has been extended to those who filed their 2019 to 2020 tax return; that’s 600,000 people. Indeed, many of those had become self-employed in that year, and therefore could be eligible for the fourth and fifth grants. That was a significant and important change, but I think it’s all forgotten that actually we made a number of additional other important changes to schemes before that.

    We’ve tried to develop them, and to allow them to evolve to become more inclusive over a period of time, and that’s been a very important thing too.

    I’m delighted we’ve been able to make those changes, and where we have been presented with other proposals for how to include more people, we have taken them with great seriousness. I and my officials have really tried to work through all the angles and all the kinks, to try to see if there’s a way we can accommodate them, and in some cases we haven’t been able to. That is because we have not been able to overcome the concerns that we’ve had about issues of protecting public money and safeguarding against fraud and error and abuse. It is a matter of profound regret, but it is the counterpart to the very rapid work that we have done to put in place these extraordinary, wide ranging measures on behalf of the vast majority of people who have been affected.

    Now if you look overall, we’ve got something like a £407 billion package of support, part of the overall response to the COVID pandemic, and so there is a very wide range of help for people who may not have been able to be helped by those schemes, and many have been able to avail themselves of that as well.

    Now if we turn from the existing response to the future and ask ourselves what might the future look like for HMRC in four years for taxpayers, I think it’s important to note a few things. The first is that these schemes are continuing as we emerge from the current period of crisis. They are in place, they are being phased out in a stepped and carefully calibrated way, precisely so we can have as orderly and measured transition as we possibly can to a future robust economic and public health recovery.

    But of course, we’re also trying to think about the future as well and to learn and to reflect on the experience of the past few months. HMRC’s fundamental role is going to remain the same, that is to say, it is still going to collect the taxes and support public services, it is still going to provide financial help to those that need it most. But how they do that and how they interact with how people are increasingly choosing to live and work – of course those have massively changed as well in the last few months – are really important questions. And we need to change, and we need to change the tax system, to make sure that we recognise those facts.

    That is why I have placed so much emphasis and HMRC has been so engaged in the work we’ve done on our 10-year tax administration strategy. That’s a really important thing. I think it’s an absolutely foundational project: I try to take, wherever I possibly can, a strategic view of matters and that is what we have tried do here. Improving the resilience and the effectiveness of the tax system over the next decade – that’s the core goal for us.

    At the same time, we want to try to track and anticipate some of the rapid changes—social changes, economic changes, technological changes—that we’re seeing in our society and in our economy. We also want to do that while reducing the cost to taxpayers, helping them to meet their obligations more easily, simplifying if we possibly can, accommodating and including other easements that may help people as they go about their lives.

    We don’t want people’s lives to be structured by ‘You need to pay tax’. We want their lives to be rewarding, successful and happy; and if they’re running businesses, then we want the proper payment of tax to be something that comes naturally and effectively through a well-functioning tax administration system. So that is the overall package of benefits that we want to offer.

    Now, how are we doing this? The first is we’re focusing on extending our Making Tax Digital programme. And I’ll talk a bit more about that later, but I think you know that by April of next year, smaller VAT registered businesses will be required to join the larger organisations that already signed up to MTD. And from the following year we’re going to be extending MTD to income tax self-assessment for business and landlords with income over £10,000.

    You’ve heard today about how the strategy is going to involve using more real time information so that taxpayers gather a more up-to-date understanding of what’s going on, and I hope greater certainty over their tax position and potentially the greater capacity to assess risks in their own lives or in their own businesses.

    Well, of course, tax reporting will become increasingly real-time. It may well make sense, although this is a complex and tricky area, to bring tax payments further into line with that, so that taxpayers have a single and, as far as possible, a complete financial picture of their tax situation. Of course, there may also be end-of-year adjustments – I’m not downplaying the seriousness, in accordance with that issue – but that’s the goal. But it’s not just about systems, it’s about the everyday business of making tax easier to calculate and easier to understand. And of course there will remain a very wide range of people with an infinitely different array of circumstances. Those circumstances are going to shape how they react, and we can’t proceed on the basis that one size will fit everyone.

    So the strategy has got to set out, alongside this, how HMRC is going to build an easily accessible and secure system of single digital accounts. We want taxpayers to have the information they need to enable them to manage their tax affairs in one place. We want them to be able to understand their tax obligations more easily. We want them to be able to pull in more tailored support so that they can make better judgments. And, of course, we want HMRC – and ultimately us all as taxpayers – to benefit from greater efficiency across the system.

    The document focuses, not just on some of the nitty gritty issues that I’ve already described, but also on plans to improve standards in the tax advice market – another indicator of how we try to see this in as inclusive and as systemic a way as possible – and also of course services for agents and representatives. Then, of course, undergirding this will be work to simplify and modify the tax administration legislative framework, so that HMRC and its taxpayers and customers can benefit from the technological and data advances that are being made.

    So that’s the overall picture. I think it’s fair to say, and I hope you would agree, that there’s been a fair bit of progress already. The Government committed £500 million pounds last summer to expanding Making Tax Digital. In the Budget we announced a further £68 million to take forward work on developing the single digital account and the customer record as I just mentioned.

    And of course the Tax, Policies and Consultations update that we did at the end of March was a way to give more prominence and transparency to tax consultations. It was a small but I think important measure designed to reform the process of making policy itself within the tax system.

    If you haven’t yet shared your views with HMRC, please do so because, as I said earlier, we really need to move forward collectively on this. We need your stakeholder input if we’re going to get things right.

    All this in turn brings out the wider and even more fundamental issue, which is that we tax with people’s consent. Public trust is a basic aspect of all taxation and if we’re going to make these kinds of changes that I’ve described, we need to ensure that the public’s faith in the tax system remains undiminished. And that means building and maintaining and sustaining that relationship of trust and consent.

    That’s why HMRC has upgraded and updated its charter recently, in order to be clear about what the standards of behaviour should be both for them and for their customers. And it’s why we’re trying to make sure that those who might need more help when they deal with HMRC, are going to get the right support at the right level, available through the extra support service.

    It’s not just that how HMRC interacts with taxpayers is important, it’s also important that the language in which they do so is as open and accessible as possible. There’s been a lot of feedback in this area from taxpayers and tax agents on behalf of customers. There’s been a lot of work done on guidance, making sure guidance is accessible, clear and authoritative as possible. And that’s all to the good.

    Let me just say a couple of other things, and then I’ll wind up. I do think we need to reflect on the experience of the past 12 months. I have tried to take a lead within the Treasury and with HMRC, setting challenges on how they think about the response – not just this pandemic, reflecting on what we’ve learned – but also how to go forward. We can’t take for granted that future events are going to bear a fixed or known relationship to the past. No one can predict the precise nature of future events.

    So what we’re going to need is optionality; we’re going to need resilience; we’re going to need preparation, and all these things are going to be core elements.

    To make this happen, we’re going to need data and technology. Digitisation and real time information are going to be the two pillars, so that HMRC as an organisation, and indeed the system as a whole, has greater flexibility and bandwidth. Now that does mean real time data of course, it also potentially could mean a more improved pandemic response. That’s a further step to how policy response might reflect what further information might be required – and this is a topic we’re doing a lot of thinking about at the moment.

    So we’re thinking hard about MTD. We’re thinking hard about the wider pandemic response—and those things have to come together. Now, you’ve already heard, as MTD is developed, it does have the potential to provide other benefits for businesses in normal times. That might be better record keeping, it might be greater support for productivity improvements, it might be lower error rates, it might be prompts to their own business management practices. We know that businesses that embrace IT tend to have significant productivity increments and improvements and that would be a very important goal.

    And of course, once you as a business have made those changes they’re with you, potentially for a very long time. So there may be some transitional processes, there may be some transitional costs. Speaking to stakeholders myself, I know that there have been concerns about what those burdens may be and whether they are too large, and I just want to be clear with you that I am very much still in listening mode on this issue.

    We want this tax system that we are developing to be as user-friendly as possible, and we want the transition to be as smooth as possible. MTD is a fundamental part – but it’s just part of a wider vision for restoring and renewing our tax administration system. If we want to achieve the full potential, even with MTD, we need to think of the wider picture, and that’s what I am focused on.

    So let me wind up: amazing achievements by HMRC and the Treasury; astonishing support from their partners and stakeholders around the country, and support that underlines all we’re doing on the tax admin strategy. I couldn’t be more proud of that.

    I think we’re in an important moment in the evolution of the whole system. I am going to be giving this as much energy as I possibly can. I will be pressing this in all parts of government. I know the Chancellor is fully committed and behind us and I know that if we really engage with it and we continue to work as hard, collectively and constructively as possible – then we can achieve something quite extraordinary.

    It’s going to take some time, but I am incredibly excited about the potential outcomes, and I think we can do some really powerful long term good, not just for ourselves, our own businesses, own institutions but for the country as a whole. Thank you very much indeed.