This is a bit misleading. Mostly, when giving evidence at a committee in the HoC, the opportunity to provide a written response to the Cttee will be gratefully accepted. In this case, the Civil Servants chose to make a verbal response, and when the numbers got so large, also agreed to make a written response. The Cttee, and the Chair in particular, were simply surprised that the option to make written submission was not leaped upon.
1 Like
It was in the ‘Yesterday in Parliament’ section of the Today show at about 6.45
1 Like
Good summary/analysis of Rogers’ speech at Glasgow here:
1 Like
Presenter: “A senior civil servant certainly put the cat among the pigeons yesterday, suggesting that Brexiteers’ favourite customs option after Brexit could cost twenty billion pounds. Our correspondent watched … a humdrum evidence session suddenly take off.”
Correspondent: “Normally people jump at the chance to write later but Jon Thompson (HMRC chief exec) was eager to help …”
Correspondent “Now, while Mr Thompson had indicated it was way above his pay grade to decide on which was the right option, he didn’t want anyone to miss his point.”
Thompson: “Is that clear enough that they’re quite different ?”
Nicky Morgan: “I think so, but I would love to have that analysis in writing … that would be really helpful.”
Thompson: “I can send that in writing to you … but to be crystal clear about that - ‘highly streamlined’ is somewhere in the £17-20bn and the cost for the ‘new customs partnership’, y’know, the estimate for the setup costs around £700M and then the recalim would pay for itself …”
Correspondent: “Later Downing St described the £20bn figure for the ‘high tech’ option as ‘speculation’”.
I suspect that Bob’s right and that a lot of the above is low-key coded for something that’s being driven home rather forcefully. And having it appear weeks later in a written answer would not have got it onto Today.
VB
I was more referring to the use of the word ‘forced’. Nothing was forced on the committee. The BBC correspondent’s views are another thing. Paul Waugh’s views are equally nuanced:
The head of HMRC, Jon Thompson, is an absolute dream for journalists. I’m seriously considering starting a petition for him to give daily appearances before select committees, such is his ability to deliver news.
Speaking before the Treasury Committee yesterday, Thompson was asked to estimate how much the maximum facilitation (‘max fac’) customs systems would cost businesses a year after Brexit.
Thompson decided to show his working out as he gave the answer, totting up the sum aloud as MPs on the committee looked on. “I’ve started to lose count now at the number of billions,” said Labour’s Rushanara Ali.
Thompson, with the air of a dodgy car mechanic, eventually reached the figure of between £17billion and £20billion in extra paperwork and other issues.
That figure seemed to shock even Brexiteer MPs. John Redwood told the BBC “if it is going to cost this much it is the wrong system”, while a leading member of the ERG looked genuinely pale at the notion of putting that much extra burden on businesses when I spoke to them outside the 1922 meeting last night.
Just as worrying as the cost was the claim that any new customs model could take three to five years to implement – meaning the UK would be leaving its transition period without anything to transition to.
The Times is reporting this morning Downing Street wants the transition period covering customs and trade to be extended until 2023. The proposal has yet to be made to Brussels, but it would certainly risk a huge row with Tory Brexiteers. But seeing as they failed to act over the divorce bill, the continuing of ECJ jurisdiction for another 21 months after Brexit, the UK being a ‘vassal state’ during the transition period, maybe May thinks their bark is worse than their bite.
It all taken from here:
Hadn’t realised it was Thompson, he was our old PUS at the MOD. He isn’t the type to drop that kind of information without a Ministerial nod. I would certainly see this as Hammond dropping a bombshell on the Tory hard Brexiteers in Cabinet. A lot of media have picked it up and you would think the £20 billion was a cost to the UK tax payer from some of the reporting, result for Hammond and the “customs union” wing of the Cabinet.
I’m confused by that post. The cost of whatever new customs regime is to be borne by firms who are presumably taxpayers in the grand scheme of things. If the cost can’t be passed on the value of the firms will decline and the direct and indirect owners of the equity will pay (that is us, the taxpaying public).
I think about half the cost would be borne by exporting UK firms and the other half by importing EU firms.
You are correct in what you say, but that would make a bit of a complicated story for political impact, social media and the red tops.
The simple message Thompson got out is that it would cost £20 billion, that is the headline story and that is all that matters for the next day or so. it will be replaced by another story by the weekend.
I’m not sure about all the low-key tin foil, but whatever pigeon carries the mesage, the cost of Brexiteer fave MaxFac being (finally) costed at twice the UK contribution to the EU budget AND borne not by HMG but by business would probably make it onto the news, even with John Humphreys.
So … everyone’s just overreacting ? Even Redwood looked like he’d seen a ghost*, and was perfectly clear who it meant was picking up the tab
(* could have been his normal look though)
the costs will be carried by the public one way or another, If my little business has to carry the cost of the customs clearance, and inevitable waiting time for the trucks, then that cost will simply be passed on to my customers, as part of the unit price for each item coming through. The silly bit is that as we sell at ex vat prices per unit, there will be vat, and probably duty levied on that cost as well. so take your 20 Billion, and add vat and duty to it. Add to that the cost of having to revert back to paying VAT/Duty on arrival at the port and that £20 could become £30 quite quickly. Bloody good idea this brexit thing don’t you think:sob:
2 Likes
Yup. The sad thing is that in this case the ‘product’ in return for those costs is almost completely valueless - it’s just the filling in of forms i.e. process. I guess Rees-Mogg would point to the freedom it gives us to ‘be our own bosses’ and argue that that is worth any amount of wasted time and money. He’s sick in the head though.
VB
2 Likes
It was here or the cockpunch thread. I chose here
3 Likes
1 Like
Slow news day
7 Likes
Another good piece from this guy.
1 Like
Cunt
2 Likes
The one with the big nose?