Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
MP for North Cotswolds · Conservative · United Kingdom
“If we had to have change, I thank the Secretary of State for listening to the vast majority of people Gloucestershire and coming up with the best proposal that was on the table.”
“I thank the Prime Minister very much for making this appointment. As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee and the appointments panel, I warmly welcome the motion to appoint Michael Jary CBE as the next chair of the National Audit Office.”
“Michael has the skills and the leadership needed to ensure the NAO remains a high-performing, innovative and digitally-enabled organisation, supporting Parliament’s detailed scrutiny of public spending and helping to secure value for money for taxpayers. For these reasons, I am delighted to support this appointment.”
“It would appear that this defence investment plan is unaffordable, but the Public Accounts Committee will be examining that. Deep in the plan is an old accountant’s trick: a vast efficiency savings figure of £10.7 billion. Does the plan rely on that figure?”
“It is clear that the criminal justice system has considerable weaknesses. A central issue is the lack of usable integrated data. The police, courts and prisons operate on separate systems that do not effectively communicate with one another.”
“This has been a constructive debate, and everybody has aired the themes that I raised throughout the debate. The Minister has outlined one or two areas where things are going a little better, namely perhaps a reduction in some of the Crown court backlogs, but that is countervailed by increases in the backlog in magistrates courts.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 9 of 12.
“As I just said, the Oxford Economics forecast is an extra 1.6 million visitors, whereas the OBR forecast is 50,000. However, the Oxford Economics forecasts are being proved right by the real data from businesses that is now coming in, and the OBR figure is being proved significantly wrong. All the data coming in clearly shows that the reason why the Treasury does not recognise the figure from Oxford Economics is not because the Oxford Economics forecast is wrong but because the OBR forecast is out of date. The Government are understandably acting on figures from the Treasury that they deem to be reliable. To assess the figures and bring some finality to the debate, I wrote to the OBR in May asking whether it could examine the costings and benefits related to tax-free shopping, both for VAT reclaim and duty-free shopping.”
“The slight difference between the data of the Oxford Economics and Cebr forecasts is due to timing, with the former’s report released in October 2022 and the latter’s published in July 2023. However, we now have real consumer behaviour and spending data. By contrast with the up-to-date findings from Cebr, the Treasury’s own figures, on which the Government are making their decisions, come from 2020 estimates. I say to the Minister that the data is quite out of date and so low that it considerably reduces the estimate for visitor numbers and spend. The Minister recently wrote to me saying that the Government were concerned that the findings of the Oxford Economics study did not match those of the OBR, particularly on the expected number of visitors as a result of introducing tax-free shopping.”
“Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), I co-signed a letter to the Chancellor highlighting the most recent forecasting report from leading economics consultancy Cebr, the Centre for Economics and Business Research. Its figures were built on an earlier study by Oxford Economics. The two reports were staggering. Cebr forecast additional visitor numbers of between 1.6 million and 1.7 million into this country if the measures were reinstalled, and increased spending of £1.7 billion to £2.8 billion. They each forecast that the GDP of the UK could increase by between £4.1 billion and £9.1 billion annually. I note that the Treasury forecast is just an extra 50,000 visitors.”
“That is an example of how the UK is losing out. HM Treasury forecasts that allowing 415 million EU residents to shop tax-free in Britain would generate only 50,000 additional trips annually—0.2% of the 24 million EU visitors in 2019. By the same logic, 66 million British residents now being able to shop tax-free in the EU would generate only an additional 9,000 trips. That is simply not credible. The reality is that in 2022 around 48,000 British people claimed VAT refunds in the EU, worth more than half a billion pounds. In 2023, that figure has more than doubled. We estimate that more than 1 million British residents will spend more than £1 billion on tax-free shopping in the EU, but not in the UK. That is one more proof that the Treasury has out-of-date forecasts. On 3 August, along with my right hon.”
“The submissions show without a doubt that British businesses have suffered hundreds of millions of pounds in lost sales since 2022, and they see it getting worse, as more and more international travellers realise that they cannot shop tax-free in Britain. In June 2023, the business improvement district for London’s west end, the New West End Company, which my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) knows well, surveyed its member businesses. More than half—54%—said that they were reviewing their long-term capital investment programmes to take account of the fall in the relative performance of their west end stores compared with their stores in continental Europe. More than one fifth—22%—are considering closing their London stores and relocating to mainland Europe.”
“Unfortunately, we have a double whammy: British shoppers joining other international visitors to shop tax-free in the EU, not in the UK, but not the same level of increased spending here as in other European countries. British shoppers now spend £1 billion on shopping tax-free in the EU, not here. If tax-free shopping was reinstated, Britain would be the only major European economy where 447 million EU residents could shop tax-free, which would create a huge new tourist market. Britain is missing out on a £1 billion Brexit bonus—a real opportunity for Brexit growth. HMT did not forecast that that many visitors would be diverted completely from visiting the UK in favour of EU destinations. At the Government’s request, many businesses submitted actual evidence to HMT, in confidence, on the impact of ending tax-free shopping.”
“In quarter 1 of 2023, US visitor spending was still just at 2019 levels in the UK, but in France and Spain it was around three times as much as 2019. Unfortunately, the differential is widening. Similarly, spending by Gulf Co-operation Council visitors to the UK in 2022 was around 65% of 2019 levels, whereas in Italy and Spain it was one and a half times the 2019 levels and in France it was double. Brexit was an opportunity to create change in our economy that truly benefits the UK—creating new opportunities for growth for our innovative and internationally renowned retail, tourism and hospitality sectors. Instead, the EU is enjoying a Brexit bonus at Britain’s expense.”
“Sadly, however, our tourist industry recovery has not been as strong as that of some of our European neighbours. All the real trading data from 2022, as international travel resumed, consistently undermines the Treasury’s forecast, which is that tax-free shopping would have little impact on visitor numbers and spending. The actual data on visitor numbers from 2022 and early 2023 show that ending tax-free shopping has had a significant negative impact on the behaviour of international travellers. Many choose to visit the UK, but unfortunately the really high spenders travel to Europe, because it is 20% cheaper to do their luxury goods shopping there. For example, in 2022, spending by US visitors to the UK was back to pre-2019 pandemic levels, but in France, Spain and Italy it was double.”
“Critically, Britain is therefore now 20% more expensive for shopping than any EU destination. As we know, the entire economy was badly hit by the covid-19 pandemic and the wide shutdown of society during lockdown. Some of our hardest-hit industries were the tourism, culture and leisure, and hospitality sectors, which, owing to the very nature of their businesses, were unable to adapt easily to the hard lockdown rules, the impact of international restrictions, and reduced travel and tourism. Now, thankfully, the pandemic is over. We have seen tourists return to the UK to enjoy the cultural sites in London, travel to our other great cities across our great country, and visit our picturesque towns and villages—including tens of thousands of visitors, I am glad to say, to my constituency of the Cotswolds.”
“I therefore urge the Government to reconsider their objections to tax-free shopping which, as I say, I believe are based on inaccurate figures. We need an independent review to consider the topic so that we do not miss out on what could be a hugely positive and almost instantaneous win for the UK economy. On 31 December 2020, the UK ended its tax-free shopping schemes for non-EU visitors and did not extend the schemes to EU visitors after the UK left the EU. The Government’s reasoning for that decision was the estimated cost of extending tax-free shopping to EU residents. Incidentally, all EU countries refund VAT on goods purchased by non-EU visitors—those visitors get the VAT refunded on purchases on the high streets and at duty-free shops in airports.”
“Friend, which I have to say would be almost cost-free, is for the Treasury to commission an independent assessment through the Office for Budget Responsibility or a respected audit firm—so that the Treasury believes it when it gets the results—of the full economic effect of tax-free shopping on the UK figures and all the figures that are available. I believe the Government’s current position is based on inaccurate and incomplete Treasury figures that say that the cost of tax-free shopping would be £2 billion a year in refunded VAT. To highlight briefly how inaccurate those figures are, that calculation was reached by overestimating VAT refunds to UK shoppers by £600 million and excluding any tax revenue from increased spending by extra tourists.”
“A study by Oxford Economics showed that restoring tax-free shopping would directly create a staggering 78,000 new jobs up and down the UK, possibly add as much as £4.1 billion to UK GDP, and result in—we believe—a net positive £350 million each year for His Majesty’s Treasury. In my speech, I will go into more detail and examine what the data suggests on the opportunities for economic growth from reintroducing tax-free shopping and VAT reclaim for foreign visitors. Before we review the figures, I make it clear that my sole ask today of my hon.”
“This is an important debate on an issue I have campaigned on for the past few years following the Government’s decision to end tax-free shopping for international visitors when we left the EU. We are now the only major European country that does not have tax-free shopping, and the British economy is missing out as a result. In fact, the United Nations World Tourism Organisation barometer shows that Britain’s post-pandemic recovery in visitor numbers is the worst of all major European countries. It is important at the start of the debate to respond to the idea that such a scheme would not benefit the British people.”
“I beg to move, That this House has considered tax-free shopping for international visitors. I thank you, Dr Huq, and Mr Speaker very much for granting me this opportunity to bring before the House the important subject of tax-free shopping—both VAT reclaim and duty-free shopping—for international visitors to this country. I also thank my hon. Friend the Minister, to whom I am grateful for turning up on this hot afternoon when I am sure she would much rather be doing something else. I am delighted to have the support of colleagues from throughout the country on this campaign. Of course, this issue affects not only London—it affects London greatly—but cities and tourist hubs across the UK, shopping destinations, cultural venues and the major regional airports.”
“Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said, instead of sticking to the figures that were produced for it in 2020. If it proves that the Treasury figures are correct, so be it. But if, as so many experts and businesses believe, there is considerable economic gain from introducing tax-free shopping, it would be an utter tragedy not to do so. Let us consider the real opportunity for growth and invigorate our economy by introducing tax-free shopping for tourists who come to this country.”
“My hon. Friend makes a really good point. This is what the Treasury figures do not cover at the moment. It is not just the VAT reclaimed; it is the VAT paid on all the other items, such as meals in hotels. And it is not just VAT: it is corporation tax, air passenger duty and a range of other duties that will be brought into the Treasury. That is where the figure of £350 million—our estimate—comes from, so my hon. Friend makes a really important point. You will be glad to know I am coming to a conclusion, Dr Huq. The Treasury’s figures are based on the wrong methodology that does not consider in full the major upside for the country. I make an urgent plea today to the Financial Secretary. It is time that the OBR or another audit firm did a proper investigation into all the figures, as my hon.”
“I thank the shadow Exchequer Secretary for giving way. I did not realise he had just been promoted, so I congratulate him on his new post. For understandable reasons, he is not committing to restore tourist tax-free shopping, but would he support my plea to the Minister that we should have a proper independent examination of all the figures to prove whether it would be a tax benefit, neutral or negative for this country, so that we can make informed decisions?”
“I anticipated that my hon. Friend would raise that—in fact, I nearly put it in my speech to stop her doing so. The proportion of people who want to reclaim the tax and have goods delivered—let us think of, say, a Chinese person visiting this country—is minute compared with the proportion who shop in this country and then physically reclaim the VAT and go home. So while that scheme is available, it is very little used.”
“The Minister has fully set out the case for why she believes the Treasury’s methodology relating to the £2 billion cost to the Treasury is correct. I suggest that I take that away and ask industry to go through, in depth, all the things that she has mentioned and come up with a statement on whether they agree on each individual point, and if not, why they disagree and what the effect would be. If, at the end of the day, we still disagree with the Treasury’s methodology, may I come back to her with a comprehensive statement and discuss it further? I would still say that we badly need an independent study. I have not brought my brief today, but I recall that when the OBR addressed the Treasury Committee, it said that it placed low reliance—I think that is what it said—on the visitor number forecasts.”
“I am grateful to you, Dr Huq, for giving me the opportunity to briefly reply to this debate; it is very important. I thank the Minister for setting out in detail for the first time how the Treasury’s methodology works. I will come back to that in a minute. Before she did so, she set out in detail the reliefs that the Treasury has given to businesses in rates and VAT, as well as high street grants and business grants during the dreadful pandemic, all of which were very much appreciated by businesses and no doubt kept a lot of them going. Some of those reliefs still persist today, for which I am sure businesses are grateful. But that is no substitute for businesses getting profits into their bottom line, and one way of doing that is to get more tourists into this country spending more money. That is why I think the issue is so important.”
“I am grateful to my hon. Friend for being so well informed to be able to answer that individual point. However, I suspect, again, that industry and the OBR will disagree with her over that matter. I thank the Minister very much, and you, Dr Huq, for so ably chairing this debate. It has been thoroughly useful. The fact that we have had relatively few speakers has enabled us to examine the whole issue in detail; I think industry will be very grateful for that. I suspect that it will come back with all sorts of replies that will rebut what my hon. Friend has said. Let us see and then I will go back to her and I am sure the debate will continue. Nevertheless, I thank her very much for what she has done this afternoon. Question put and agreed to. Resolved , That this House has considered tax-free shopping for international visitors.”
“The Secretary of State is absolutely right to prioritise the safety of our children and to close schools where necessary. Will she now give the House an assurance that those 600 priority schools will be surveyed as quickly as possible? Then we can move on to all schools and find out where RAAC is present, and take the appropriate remediation for every school that has it.”
“Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to take part in the debate, named in honour of our late colleague Sir David Amess. I participated in these debates with him for many years. Indeed, I participated in an interview with him to promote his book three weeks before he was sadly killed. He was a great friend. I also pay tribute to my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who is sitting in front of me. It is to the huge benefit of the House that he did not suffer the same fate as his driver and his interpreter in that car. His speech demonstrated, loudly and clearly, to the House and the nation how important it is to have colleagues here with different skills and different knowledge.”
“In view of these communication problems with the RPA, will the Minister consider delaying the deadlines for applications to the mid-tier countryside stewardship scheme? That seems only fair, considering the difficulties people are having with communicating with the RPA. In closing, Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish you, Mr Speaker, colleagues, all our very hard-working staff and the hard-working staff in the House, a happy recess and a chance to recharge their batteries.”
“The main difficulty in completing the application is that the Rural Payments Agency and DEFRA website is not functioning properly in relation to the new scheme. To exacerbate the delays in moving to the new scheme, the RPA is providing little to no communication with those farmers who have queries about how to apply for the scheme, meaning that desperate constituents, trying to apply before the deadline, are contacting my office for help and support. The deadline for many is coming up in the middle of next month and I urge the Department to provide the communication and support required to help those trying to transition to the new scheme, as they have been advised to do. This is causing great consternation for my constituency farmers and, no doubt, many other farmers up and down the country, at their busiest harvest time of year.”
“I very much regret the necessity to say that those assurances have not been honoured. In the light of that, and the catalogue of mistakes and injustice, will the Minister not take the obvious decision that addresses the problem that the Department has created for itself and others, and immediately renew general licence 43 for all shoots located on specially protected areas? That general licence has subsisted for decades and I cannot see why we need it to be withdrawn at this juncture. Secondly, I would like to raise the urgent issue of the higher-level stewardship scheme, which a number of people in my farming constituency have contacted me about in the last week. The deadline is approaching for many to transfer from the higher-level stewardship scheme and apply for the new mid-tier countryside stewardship scheme.”
“Shoots will be forced to close leading to catastrophic consequences, not only to jobs and businesses in these areas but also to conservation.” “It will bankrupt the shoot, two gamekeepers will lose their jobs, just not practical at all.” Given that these people had a legitimate expectation that DEFRA would honour its promises to “engage early and consult with the industry”, and a legitimate expectation, when they ordered the birds, that the licensing regime would not change, will the Minister commit to providing compensation to those shoots that have and will lose out entirely because of DEFRA’s decisions? The Minister knows that I, and many colleagues, sought assurances on numerous occasions that this problem would be sorted out, and we were given those assurances.”
“A community shoot operating around military firing ranges involving veterans, some of whom have post-traumatic stress disorder and welcome the social engagement that the shoot provides, was also refused a licence. Here are some quotes from people who run shoots: “Disaster, we have the first day shooting on the 20th October, no chance the birds will be hardy and fit. We will have to refund guns £14,000.” “Unsustainable loss for us and Court action with suppliers and possibly death by gassing for a lot of healthy birds.” “Believing an October release date would be a workable solution for any shoot just shows the lack of knowledge and understanding the people processing these licences have.”
“I am told that the decision to change the policy was made as late as 12 April—it should have happened many months earlier—but shooting organisations were not informed for over a month. I am also told that civil servants were under an explicit instruction not to communicate any changes to the shooting organisations ahead of time. I wonder whether that was an instruction from officials or Ministers. Let me give the House some examples of the impact on shoots of DEFRA’s decision. A colleague told me this week that a syndicate shoot rented by working men in the north that has been the only shoot in the area to protect nesting hen harriers for years has been refused a licence.”
“If the assessment justified such a drastic change in policy for shooting, presumably DEFRA requested similar assessments for other activities that occur in special protection areas. For example, did Ministers request assessments on waterbird feeding events, seabird tourism events, and birdwatching events such as the call to come and see two wonderful bee-eaters at Trimingham? That event attracted more than 15,000 birdwatchers. That is fantastic, but it must have carried a risk of transmitting AI. Furthermore, public access to the coastal path and bird-ringing activities all carry a risk of transmitting AI. If Ministers did not request assessments for those activities, will today’s Minister explain why shooting was singled out?”
“DEFRA’s justification for this disaster is the prevention of avian influenza, AI, but that justification is deeply flawed. No game bird has ever been released when infected by AI. There is no record of any wild bird being infected by the release of game birds. Outbreaks of AI in the UK do not correlate to the areas in which game birds are released and do not occur when game birds are released. The Netherlands has similar levels of AI, yet it has no game birds released. This is not a game bird issue. The shadow habitats regulation assessment provided by Natural England to Ministers in January 2023 has not been shared with the people whose livelihoods and businesses are now being destroyed. Will the Minister undertake to publish and share it with all those affected?”
“Military shoots, which provide social benefits for veterans, have been shut down, and shoots with excellent conservation credentials over decades have been refused a licence even though they protect rare and magnificent bird species that inhabit their land. Who will protect those species if the gamekeeper has been made redundant? Meanwhile, the application process for a licence is in an almighty mess, with decisions delayed, applications muddled and lost, shoots left waiting for weeks for a decision, and those that have been given licences in some cases subject to unworkable and increasingly bizarre restrictions. It is simply not possible to keep birds ready to be released now until September and to get birds in any numbers at that date, and it is unethical to shoot such young birds when the season starts. Why has this happened?”
“Shooting organisations were given only a few days’ notice of a significant policy change, with the feeble excuse that circumstances did not permit consultation. Ministers knew that supplies of game birds were ordered in November and December before release in the following June and July. That was contained in their evidence to the courts in the judicial review in 2019, so they should have known that their decision would leave shoots in an impossible position, expecting imminent delivery of thousands of birds that could not be released and could not be culled, with very limited market for resale. Birds over nine weeks old cannot be kept in pens because they would attack each other—hence the animal welfare crisis to which DEFRA has offered no solutions yet. Shoots have been refused licences, with estates threatened with bankruptcy.”
“There was a similar outcry from shoots at that time, and the then Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), reacted very differently. He took over Natural England’s functions, and issued new general licences which allowed the necessary pest control. He was a Minister who knew what was right, and he was not overawed by Natural England. What a difference from the way in which the matter is being handled today! In this case, it is unacceptable for Ministers to treat stakeholders like mushrooms, promising them consultation and engagement, accepting the need for early notice, and then keeping them in the dark. That is precisely what happened in this case, despite earlier promises.”
“I ask the House to bear with me as I explain the importance of that decision, which DEFRA took in full knowledge of the shooting calendar and communicated to shoots even though birds had already been ordered and were about to be released. It has caused chaos around the country and resulted in an animal welfare crisis, threatened redundancies, shoot closures and the bankruptcies of rural businesses. In short, this is a disaster for rural affairs. Something similar happened in the spring of 2019 when, after a legal challenge by anti-shooting pressure groups, Natural England revoked the general licences to control pest birds at precisely the point when the protection given by shoots to ground-nesting, laying and fledging birds was critical for their survival.”
“I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for adding to my tribute. I now want to raise two urgent issues related to shooting and farming. Before doing so, I should declare my interest as chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on shooting and conservation, vice-president of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, a shoot partner and a farmer. I very much regret the necessity to raise the unexpected policy change on the part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that will deprive shoots releasing gamebirds on special protection areas with a 500-metre buffer zone of the benefit of general licence 43, forcing each of them to apply to Natural England, which will then advise Ministers on the signing off of each individual licence to release gamebirds.”
“I thank my hon. Friend on behalf of my farmers, who are very troubled by this, as are farmers up and down the country. It would be really welcome if that were to be put back, even by a few weeks.”
“Time after time, we find that every Government Department is short of young graduates with digital skills. Will my right hon. Friend think about making an application to the Home Office to encourage more visas to be granted to students who want to take digital degrees in this country?”
“I agree entirely with the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s speech. Does he agree that the possible lacuna in the tracing of Russian assets is in Companies House and shell companies? Does he agree that we need to amend the regulations surrounding Companies House to provide proper verification of the people in charge of those companies, and allow Companies House to liaise more closely with the fraud authorities and report suspected fraud?”
“The right hon. Gentleman is a lawyer. Is he aware that one of the biggest arbitration cases ever is before the United Kingdom commercial court? It concerns the seizure by Russia, a month before it went to war in Ukraine, of several hundred civil commercial aircraft. That case is going to cover many billions of pounds, both here and in the US. When we consider what measures we take against Russia, should we not consider that act of expropriation by the Russian authorities?”
“The Russian economy is worth about $1.8 trillion, ranking it 11th in the world. Does my hon. Friend agree that the UK has a strong legal base and that we need to work with our international partners so that we can send out a strong message to the Ukrainians today that there is a hope that one day their country will be rebuilt?”
“Our Government deserve great credit for the military and non-military support—£470 million has been given. The World Bank estimated in March that the total rebuilding of Ukraine was likely to cost in excess of £411 billion—that was before the destruction of the Kakhovka dam. Did my hon. Friend detect at yesterday’s conference a willingness among the world’s wealthier nations that for one reason or another have not felt able to participate in the military effort to participate generously in the efforts to rebuild Ukraine?”
“Does the Leader of the House agree that, whatever view one takes on this matter and whichever side one is on, the House unanimously set up the membership of the Privileges Committee—all seven Members—who worked for months diligently to produce this report, but they have come under huge criticism and abuse, so much so that they have had to have extra security, to preserve the reputation of this House, and this House therefore owes them a huge debt of gratitude?”
“The shadow Leader of the House is making a very thoughtful speech. She has satisfied me on the first of my two points: that a person knows there has been a complaint, because there will have been a complaint to the police. My second point is that it is a fundamental tenet of universal human rights that a person who is complained about should have the right to make their own defence. Can she confirm that, under this procedure, such a person will have the right, at every stage, to make their own defence? They might have a perfectly good and reasonable defence as to why this should not take place.”
“I am sorry to try the House’s patience but, politics being what it is, there is every possibility that a serious vexatious complaint will be made, and the police would have to take it very seriously because it is a serious complaint, but it might be totally fallacious. It is only right that, in this procedure, whoever is accused of a very serious offence should have the full right to defend themselves.”
“I greatly respect the hon. Member’s work in this whole area, and I agree with his two principles on safeguarding and fairness. What we have been debating and asking about is how the panel comes to a decision. It is a serious decision, because that person who is excluded from this place may well eventually be found innocent, but the reputational damage is so great that he might lose his job as a Member of Parliament. This is therefore an extremely important matter. How can it possibly be fair that that panel, in coming to that judgment, cannot hear from the person himself or herself as to why they should not be excluded? Surely that cannot be a fair system.”
“Every single young person who gets on the housing ladder under a Conservative Government makes our communities more sustainable. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to build the right type of housing and speed it up, we need to fund planning authorities properly through innovative funding?”
“I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this very important debate, short though it is. With food inflation at 18%—which hits poor people particularly hard, because staple foods are going up the most, not luxury foods—does she agree that it makes no sense to take grade 1 and 2 land out of production here, only to fly in food from all around the world, increasing the carbon footprint?”
“May I also pay my tribute to DCI John Caldwell and to his family? I hope he makes a good recovery. I congratulate the Prime Minister and his team on doing something that many people said was impossible, with a negotiation that contains the red and green lanes, which eases the flow of goods and is in a legal framework that is fundamentally different from the protocol. Does he agree with me that this negotiation—this Windsor agreement—provides the prospect of investors investing with confidence in Northern Ireland to create new jobs, and that it is the people of Northern Ireland who will benefit from this?”
“My right hon. Friend is being generous with his time. Is there not a fourth argument for a universal healthcare system, which my right hon. Friend was very keen on when he was Secretary of State: the ability to introduce new technologies, new procedures and new drugs? All of those things are much easier when one has a big bulk of patients to draw data from.”