Middle East: Economic Update

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question and I agree with him and the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, on the importance of small businesses to our economy. As the Chancellor said, we do not yet know what the full impact of this conflict will be, so we must be agile in responding appropriately at each moment. It remains the case that the best way to protect families and businesses, large and small, and charities, which the right reverend Prelate mentioned, is by the rapid de-escalation of this conflict.

He mentioned transport costs and we have already taken action: we have extended the fuel duty cut of 5p and have pushed out the cheaper fuel finder, empowering people to avoid rip-off prices. We are chasing down the last few filling stations, so that we can reach 100% compliance with that. He will also know that, when wholesale kerosene prices more than doubled overnight, we stepped in within a matter of days with £53 million of support for those who needed it most. From next week, households will benefit from £150 off their energy bills, thanks to the action that we took in the Budget. Also, the price cap is giving households certainty on their bills until July, ahead of the winter months when people use 78% of their gas.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, the Government say that they will directly reduce food bills by joining the EU SPS. Can the Minister give us a forecast of how much cheaper food is going to be? It certainly never worked when we were in the EU and it is a very complicated and expensive scheme.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

No, but I am certain that it will lead to lower food prices, just as I am certain that the Brexit that the noble Lord championed has led to all manner of difficulties for consumers, households and businesses. I am sorry that he is still unable to concede that very important point. As I have said before, at a time of global instability, getting closer to and building a deeper economic relationship with our closest partners is in our national, security and economic interest.

Spring Forecast Statement

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I enjoyed the speech from the noble Lord, Lord St John, and I regret that I arrived in this place too late to hear more of his Lordship’s wisdom. I wish him every success with his new ventures.

The OBR is set up to fail. The Treasury asks it to perform an impossible task. As someone who has in past jobs had to advise and comment on economic forecast models, the one piece of advice I would give is to never have a spot forecast for something as difficult as a deficit or an inflation rate five years out. To make sure the OBR fails, the Government set it the task of forecasting without allowing it to make any variations to policy. We all know that, over a five-year period, there is going to be at least one general election, and sometimes Governments get so unpopular that there can be a very major change of Government, with a change of policy. We also know that, over a five-year period in this impatient world, Prime Ministers often get fed up with their Chancellors, or parties get fed up with their Prime Ministers, so there can be changes of personnel and a series of changes of policy from that as well. So, it is a totally unrealistic assumption.

What has the OBR done with its problems this time? The OBR tells us that inflation will be a very timely 2% in every year of the last four years of the forecast. I wish it was so, but experience says it is unlikely. The OBR says that the oil price will gently gyrate between $62 and $67 over the forecast period. I know that these are annual averages, so that reduces some of the volatile swings that we are seeing. But, again, that is a heroic or inaccurate forecast. I suggest that there will be considerably more volatility. If we got an early end to the war and things develop more favourably, you could even end up with considerably lower oil prices. In the meantime, obviously, we are all extremely nervous, the war continues, there is more disruption of oil trade and oil prices will stay very high.

One of the things that I fear the forecast is right about is that our own production of gas will halve. I fear that it will under current policies, and I add my voice to those who have already eloquently said that we should stop all this self-harm and get our own gas out, with more better-paid jobs and a lot of extra tax revenue—and, above all, less world CO_2, which is the main preoccupation of the Government. What is not to like? The forecast also says that our oil production will be down by about a third. That, too, is subject to the same analysis, and it would be much more sensible for us to deliver our own oil.

The worrying thing in the forecast, which has already caused some alarm in this debate, is that the OBR thinks that the cost of government borrowing is going to rise in every year of the forecast. We should remember that this is from quite a high base by recent past history, because, over the last 15 months, under Chancellor Reeves, the Government have been paying a higher rate of interest for longer-term borrowing for the whole of the 15 months than on the worst day’s spike under Liz Truss, which they regularly condemn as being an unacceptably high level of interest rates. This OBR forecast says that the interest rates are going to be even higher progressively, in a gentle upwards progression, over the whole forecast. Clearly, the OBR is worried, as we all should be, by the weight of debt already issued and by the progressive increase in the amount of debt over the forecast.

This brings me to my advice to the Government. They should change the remit of the OBR to concentrate on years 1 and 2 of the forecast, where there is more chance of getting it right, and they should amend their fiscal rules again. I know they are bringing it down from a five-year fiscal forecast rule to a three-year fiscal forecast rule, but many of the arguments against five years still apply to three years. The number is invented and will not actually ever take place. Year 5 or year 3 never comes, because it is a rolling forecast, so, in effect, there is no control over the deficit. We need a control over the deficit in years 1 and 2 that is real and biting, at least by moral shame and preferably by government decision. Then I think they would find it easier to keep the interest rates under control.

There was a touching ceremony in this very Chamber last week when the Government advanced their legislation to increase income taxation by reducing the generosity of certain pension-saving allowances. The most remarkable thing about that legislation that we were asked to approve was the date of its introduction, which is to be 2029 to 2030. Why choose such a late date? Indeed, it could well be after the next election, and there could even have been a change of government by then, who might not particularly want that legislation. I assume it is great Treasury intelligence and cleverness, because that, of course, is the control year it is currently on for controlling the deficit; and so clever people in the Treasury invented a tax increase, which actually has, according to the OBR, the magic property of a large increase in tax in year 1, and then it halves for all subsequent years. You therefore get the maximum deficit-breaking effect from putting that tax in in year 5 of the forecast, probably neatly after the general election.

This is creative accounting on a grand scale, and it is a surrogate for the real job of getting that deficit down, so I would suggest to the Government that they look again at their fiscal rules. In all the years we have had OBR forecasts of deficits and fiscal rules, we have seen a mushrooming of deficits and debt under successive Governments of all parties, so it is now trebled over the OBR period. Let us therefore have an OBR with a bit of bite. Let us give it a bit of proper independence. I know it is staffed with civil servants, and they work very closely with the Treasury, but it needs to be independent enough to accurately forecast the deficit in years 1 and 2 and to help the Government control it.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 8th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

We in the Labour party believe that having fiscal rules that are iron-clad is essential to being trusted to manage the economy in a responsible way that puts family security and family finances first. Having strong fiscal rules and stability underpinning every other decision that we make is absolutely essential to everything that a Government might hope to do. Indeed, that stability forms the foundation for getting the economy growing, because with stability we will be able to work in partnership with businesses to remove the barriers to investment, using catalytic public investment to unlock more than £20 billion from the private sector to invest in the industries of the future. To support that investment, we will reform the systems that our economy needs to thrive, from reform of our planning system and employment rights to devolving powers to elected Mayors on transport, skills, enterprise, energy and planning. That is how Labour will begin to grow the economy if we win the next general election.

We know that a new approach and a new Government are needed, because that is what people across the country are telling us. People want a new approach whereby they can feel better off, rather than struggling to make ends meet as their taxes rise relentlessly. The Conservatives are desperate to distract from the mess they have created. They go from the simply unbelievable, like the Chancellor claiming yesterday that they had abolished low pay, to the unbelievably reckless, like their £46 billion unfunded plan to abolish national insurance. But no matter what they say, or how hard they try to pretend that their plan is working and that people in Britain have never had it so good, people know the reality of life. People know that taxes are at record levels.

Today we want the Conservatives to at least come clean and admit how many more people are paying tax as a result of their decisions in this Parliament, and how hard they are hitting pensioners in particular. Frankly, however, no matter whether they come clean, come the general election, people across Britain will ask themselves whether they and their family feel better off today than they did 14 years ago. The answer to that question is the reality from which the Conservatives cannot hide.

[Sir John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I rise to speak in support of tax-cutting proposals. We are not discussing the national insurance reductions in this group of clauses, but both previous speakers have spent some of their time discussing them because they are relevant, as they are the other side of the issues related to the correct levels and thresholds for income tax, which are the proper matter of our current debate. I wanted any kind of tax cut in the Budget, because we are over-taxed and the right kinds of tax cuts can speed up growth, which all the major parties in this House want, although there are some disagreements about the exact mix of policies that might create it.

The first thing we need from the Treasury is for its official forecasts and those of the OBR to have greater belief in the fact that if we promote more growth by cutting some tax rates, we may end up with more tax revenue. The best generator of more revenue to pay for our public services is a growing economy. The best generator of more growth is productivity improvements, and there is particular scope for such improvements in the public sector. The public sector was badly damaged by the covid experience. We lost a lot of productivity through the hasty and unnecessary reorganisation of public services during the pandemic, but we are finding it hard work and slow going to get the lost productivity back.

I welcome the fact that, in the latest set of Budget numbers, the Government have put in future productivity recoveries over the next few years, but it is slow progress, even to get back to the levels of productivity in 2019. I put it to the Government that they do not need to spend extra money on new technology, such as artificial intelligence, to get back to the levels of 2019. They may wish to recommend schemes for AI investment to get above 2019 levels but, by definition, we were able to get to 2019 levels of productivity without AI, because it had not been invented at that stage.

There should be more common agreement about the urgency of productivity recovery in public services. We are missing out on at least £20 billion due to the productivity problems that have developed since 2020 and the lockdown experience. However, there is also a source of extra revenue from lower taxes, because if we cut tax rates in the right way, we will generate more cash, rather than less. I think everybody now agrees that cutting certain taxes has that effect, because it is quite obvious that if we impose certain kinds of turnover or activity taxes, they will lower turnover and activity. Indeed, many taxes are imposed with a moral wish to lower activity or usage rates. For example, alcohol and tobacco attract higher taxes because the wish is that people buy them less or, in the case of tobacco, do not buy them at all. We get the same effect with things that we should be promoting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)]

As we scrutinise the Finance (No. 2) Bill in detail, starting with clauses 1 to 4, we see that the legislation serves as a profound symbol of a Government who have run aground. The Bill starkly exposes the UK Government’s complacency in the face of the cost of living crisis that continues to devastate homes across Scotland and, indeed, the other nations of the UK. Households are still reeling from the catastrophic decisions made by this Westminster Government.

As we have heard from the Government, clauses 1 to 4 are about household incomes, but the Bill falls dramatically short of meeting the urgent needs in our communities. I am used to this place lacking in humanity, but where is the humanity? It is never shown on these domestic issues. People in our communities need and want help. They want to know how they will pay for their soaring mortgage bills, their food bills—up by more than a quarter in the past two years—their ballooning car insurance premiums, their energy bills, which are still nearly 60% higher than in the winter of 2021-22, according to Library research, and much else. The clauses before the Committee do not really get to that issue.

The shadow Minister is right to talk about the per capita GDP issue in the UK, which is an utter disgrace, but what is Labour’s plan? More Brexit, more austerity and more being wedded to the fiscal rules that got us into this place. This is a damp and ineffective piece of navel-gazing from folk who had the wrong idea in the first place. Time and again, that idea has failed, but they have repackaged it and put it forward once more. Austerity is bust. It does not work, and it is madness for both the Conservative party and the Labour party to continue pursuing it, but that is what they do. This broken institution is not listening to people.

Clauses 1 and 2 could have invested in the economy. The Minister talks about devolution, but instead of devolution of investment, we are getting the devolution of his cuts. The spring Budget slashed Scottish capital funding by 16.1%, severely restricting Scotland’s aspiration for new hospitals and more. I note that the shadow Minister was happy to quote the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and Labour and the Tories are both maintaining what the Institute for Fiscal Studies has called a “conspiracy of silence” on the magnitude of the cuts required in the coming Parliament.

The former Labour leader in Scotland, Kezia Dugdale, makes it clear in an article published today that voting for Labour in Scotland would mean that people have to pay for tuition fees, and possibly for prescriptions and personal care. They are likely to see fewer child poverty interventions such as the Scottish child payment, an SNP initiative that is already lifting 100,000 children out of poverty. If they vote for Labour, people in Scotland are likely to see those things scaled back. That is the reality of the future under Labour: more austerity. Voting for a compliant, so-called Scottish Labour will have real-life consequences for the people of Scotland.

Although we will support Labour’s new clauses 1 and 4, which would offer some scrutiny of what is going wrong with the Government’s policy, Labour is ultimately only slavishly following this horrible, extremist, worn-out and clueless Tory Government, who are hollowed out by their right wing. It is testament to a Government devoid of ideas and vision, in this fag-end Parliament characterised by minimal legislative activity, that the Bill contains a mere 26 clauses, compared with last year’s 352.

[Sir John Redwood]

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us why Scotland grows less quickly than England, despite having more public spending per head?

[Drew Hendry]

Had the right hon. Gentleman done any real research, he would know that the figures for the UK are skewed dramatically by the overheated economy of London and the south-east, which buck the UK trend. If he looks at the figures for all the counties of England, including those in the north of England, he will see how the Government are letting down the people of England across the piece. But of course he does not want to do that. He just wants to make a lazy characterisation of what is happening, saying nothing about people’s potential, which is being ignored and run down by this place, this Government and the official Opposition, who have no idea how to change that.

Clauses 1 to 4 aim to maintain the current rates of income tax, including the savings rates, for another financial year. However, they do little to mitigate the Government’s broader fiscal missteps. In contrast, Scotland’s progressive approach to income tax under the SNP— I almost choked when we heard about progressive taxation earlier—has not only shielded public services from Westminster’s austerity but enhanced them, generating approximately £1.5 billion in additional revenue. We are protecting those on lower incomes, because most people in Scotland pay less income tax and dramatically less council tax than people in England.

All the scare stories about people leaving Scotland because of its progressive policies have proved to be rubbish. The report from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has shown that more higher-rate taxpayers have moved to Scotland. The revenue that the Scottish Government are attracting supports a wide array of social benefits, from free prescriptions to university tuition, which significantly reduces the cost of living for Scottish residents. Those are all things that this Parliament would attack, and Kezia Dugdale has today posted a warning about what would happen if Labour got its hands on the Scottish Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Lake]

I could not agree more. We were told that one of the supposed benefits of withdrawing from the European Union would be the liberty to tailor our tax powers; to devolve them to different parts of the UK in a bespoke way, so as to promote growth and better reflect the needs of the people. I agree that it is remarkable that the UK Government have thus far failed to make real the supposed benefits of Brexit. This review of tax policy could touch on those things. It would also be useful given the important link between tax decisions and public spending and, indeed, economic growth.

[Sir John Redwood]

Were a future Parliament to grant these tax powers to Wales, would the hon. Gentleman think that in order to promote faster growth in Wales he should cut taxes below English rates, or would he put them higher than English rates?

[Ben Lake]

I am not one to make up policy on the hoof, but the review could look at that, and if the evidence shows that tax decisions could be made to promote growth and to level up, which I think the right hon. Gentleman is in favour of, we should follow that evidence and do so.

Our continued reliance on the Barnett formula to allocate funds between the UK’s nations is problematic not only due to its flaws, but because of its inconsistent application in recent years, which has meant that Wales has lost out on billions of pounds of much-needed public investment. Members will be familiar with the concerns raised by communities across Wales regarding the way in which HS2 spending has been classified. Although not a single inch of track or rail was to be laid in Wales itself, it was categorised as an England and Wales project under the statement of funding policy, thus depriving Wales of significant consequential funding that the Barnett formula would otherwise have provided. The latest estimates suggest that Wales has lost £4 billion in consequential funding—money that could have transformed the country’s public transport infrastructure.

I understand that there will be reluctance within Government to move away from the Barnett formula, not least because devising a needs-based formula is far from simple. However, if we are to retain the Barnett formula, the funding floor should at the very least be updated to use census data from 2021 rather than the 2001 data it currently uses. I am sure the Minister will agree that much has changed since 2001—when I was actually still in primary school. The needs and population of Wales have changed considerably, so it is only reasonable that the funding floor element of the Barnett formula is at least brought up to date.

Such a consideration could be included in the review that I propose, as well as a review of the implications of UK tax policy in Wales. Again, all of this analysis and information could help inform debate for future tax policy decisions and ultimately ensure that we have a tax system that is fit for purpose and meets the needs of people in Wales.

National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) (No.2) Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I welcome the reduction in the tax on jobs. The level of overall taxation in our country is too high. The reason it is so high is primarily the huge expenditure the country, by general agreement, incurred to tackle the covid lockdown. This is why I find the Opposition’s criticism of this Government’s tax record so difficult to grasp. After all, they wanted us to lock down tougher and they wanted us to lock down for longer. While a lot of money was rightly offered by this Government to individuals and companies to replace their lost incomes —colossal expenditure on a scale we have never seen before—Labour wanted to spend more on those causes, as well as wanting the lockdown to go on for so much longer.

What we demonstrated was that if we lock down a country for a year or more, stop a very large number of people earning their livings or livelihoods at all, and close down a large number of companies for the duration and maybe for longer, it is an extremely costly process. Of course, we needed to offset that to prevent a complete collapse in the economy and to sustain some lifestyles for those who otherwise would have no income. So we as a nation have this burden of extra expenditure, which we are now having to tackle by tax levels that are higher than we like.

We are at this very important point where the higher taxes are all in place—some of them are doing their job, and some of them will disappoint because higher tax rates do not always deliver the extra revenue that Treasury and OBR planners seem to think they will—and the Government are rightly saying, from the autumn statement through this Budget and on to future fiscal events, as they are now called, that we want to get back to getting the level of taxation and the burden of the rates down. It does not mean that we want to reduce the amount of taxation—indeed, the Government, understandably, want to collect a lot more taxation, as do the Opposition—but the fundamental policy debate is about how best to do that, and it is surely right that we are going to have a more prosperous economy and more public expenditure can be afforded if we have tax levels that promote growth, particularly if we reduce the taxation that is otherwise a big burden on work, on enterprise and innovation, and on small companies and the self-employed.

I am delighted that the self-employed have been included in the national insurance cuts in both the autumn statement and this Budget, but I still think the Government need to reform or push back the changes they made to IR35. We have lost 800,000 self-employed over the covid period. Some of that is because of the damage the covid lockdown has done, but some of it is deliberate tax policy in telling people that they cannot be self-employed, or so undermining the credibility of their status as self-employed in the eyes of others that they do not get the contracts they used to get from businesses that are nervous about the tax issue.

I urge my hon. Friends on the Front Bench to find time to look again at the second part of the self-employment package. I welcome the national insurance part, but I think we need to look at IR35, because we need that extra capacity. It would be good to get back some or all of those 800,000, and to add many new ones—younger ones—to that crucial army, because I am sure all Members in the House, being honest, would agree that the self-employed make such a valuable contribution in our constituencies.

[Priti Patel]

Does my right hon. Friend share my view that over the decades we have seen such a fall or drop-off in individuals starting their own business, younger people in particular, because of these concerns about the tax burden, how regulated it is and how difficult it is? By dealing with the whole long-standing issue of IR35, we could open up a new marketplace and encourage a new generation of entrepreneurs and small business leaders to come in and really help to grow the economy.

[John Redwood]

I largely agree with my right hon. Friend, but if we look at the numbers, I think the fall-off was from 2020 to 2024. Prior to that, with good Conservative policies and lower taxes, we were growing the self-employed army very noticeably, and it was making a very important contribution to general growth and the way all our local communities are serviced. It is so often self-employed people who allow us to make personal contact in a way that large companies do not seem to want any more. They are the people who turn up in the evening or at the weekend, if necessary, to get work done, and they are the people who wrestle with the increasingly impossible streets created by Labour and Liberal Democrat councils, which make it more difficult for them to get their vans around.

[Clive Lewis]

Does the right hon. Member not understand that perhaps the other reason for the decline in the self-employed and small and medium-sized enterprises is the growth of large businesses or large corporations that push them out of the marketplace and that monopolise and dominate? That is a big part of it, and it is a massive part of how our economy has developed over the last 30 or 40 years.

[John Redwood]

No, I do not think that is the main point. I think the two main points are the ones I have made—the covid lockdown and the tax regime affecting the ability to set oneself up. I will meet the hon. Member a little of the way, because I do think that the 2021 reforms in particular put companies off dealing with the self-employed, and the self-employed often need business from other companies, as well as directly from the public, and that has been a problem. If he and his party are seriously interested, they should look at the 2017 and 2021 reforms, which I think they supported, to understand how they have backfired. That is a good example of the OBR and the Treasury thinking that they can get more money out of the self-employed by forcing more of them to be employed but ending up with a far less successful economy with far fewer people working.

[Richard Fuller]

It is an absolute pleasure to listen to my right hon. Friend. I want to reinforce his point about IR35 so that our colleagues on the Government Front Bench are clear about how important this is. He talked about how Labour in the past supported those measures, but does he share my concern that perhaps Labour has now recognised that those changes to IR35 have backfired and that it would be disastrous for the Conservative party to go into the next election not having made those changes while the Labour party is offering to do so?

[John Redwood]

I will not join my hon. Friend in suggesting that it could be disastrous to go into the election—I hope that, when we get to the election, it will be looking rather better. But I do agree that it would be great to have sorted out the IR35 taxation mess before we get to the election—after all, there could still be many months of happy Conservative Government ahead if that is the Government’s wish—as that would be a much better outcome. Failing that, it would be good to put it in the manifesto, but the self-employed would be quite right to say to the Conservatives, “If you have now got to the point of putting it in the manifesto because you think it needs changing, why didn’t you just fix it?”

[Anna Firth]

My right hon. Friend is making a brilliant speech. He is talking about the self-employed, and in Southend and Leigh-on-Sea more than 98% of my businesses are small or medium-sized—in fact, the vast majority are micro. Does he, like me, welcome the raising of the VAT threshold in the Budget? Does he think that over time it would be welcome to continue moving that threshold, which is such a brake on the growth of small businesses? It is a brilliant thing that we have done, but could we take that further?

[John Redwood]

My first request of Chancellors in recent Budgets has been that there should be a sizeable increase in the VAT threshold. I opened the bidding at taking it up to £250,000, because I think we should want get on with these things, and we should want to allow the self-employed to take on their first one or two employees and get their business to a certain scale before this colossal bureaucratic burden comes down upon them. I have not yet persuaded my hon. Friends in the Treasury. I am pleased that Chancellors have moved from saying, “No, we don’t want to do that at all,” to saying, “It can now be done.” But if the Government are to do it, they should get on with it, mean it, and look as if it is going to make a real impact.

Five thousand pounds is not much. Lots of people get their business to around £75,000 to £80,000—I have met them in my constituency, as I am sure have most Members in theirs—and then they say, “I’ll have a month off,” or, “I’ll close the B&B for more of the off-season period,” or, “I won’t take on any more contracts, because I really don’t want all that hassle.” They will say, “I’m just a self-employed plumber”—or caterer or whatever—“and I’m good at what I do. I don’t want to become a VAT expert and I don’t want to have to spend a fortune on consultants to take me through this rigmarole of trying to keep the books straight on VAT.” I think we would benefit greatly from allowing that flexibility. The Bill helps, because it does reduce self-employed national insurance costs, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) said, it would be much greater if we dealt with the VAT threshold at the same time.

I would like to extend the conversation, which the Opposition clearly want to have and the Government need to respond to, about affordable and unaffordable tax cuts. First, I note that the Opposition dub all tax cuts—apart from the odd one they vote for—as unaffordable, whereas any amount of public spending is affordable. That is a strange asymmetry. The truth is that the Budget deficit is a combination of increased spending and reduced taxation, and one needs to look at both sides, which should be treated similarly.

The other thing that the Opposition must understand, from listening carefully to Ministers, is that getting rid of all national insurance employee contributions is just an idea; it is not a pledge and it is not a policy. It is clearly not baked into the next five years of figures. We have the Government’s five-year financial plan in the Budget, which sets out in general terms what the levels of tax revenue and overall spending will be—we await more detail for future years on spending from the public spending review in due course—and we know what the current feeling is on taxation, because we are just voting that through at the moment, based on the Budget. We know that future Budgets will make changes to taxes.

I am sure that Conservative Budgets will make reductions in taxes—assuming continuity of Conservative Government—but the Government are not promising to take off all this national insurance in one go, or indeed to make any particular change to national insurance next year or the year after. That is the right position to be in. However, given that there is plenty of time to think this through—it is not urgent policy—I urge my hon. Friends in the Treasury to set out more of the consideration than the arguments before coming up with a firm pledge or a timetable for implementing a tax cut that they want.

We do need to begin with the contributory principle, which is still the main feature of the national insurance fund as we have it today, relating almost entirely to the state retirement pension. The old contributory benefits for unemployment and sickness have been largely removed from the national insurance fund—there are only residual, small amounts left—and now come out of general taxation and are voted on in the normal way. The contributory fund is primarily for the pension, which is reflected in the fact that everyone in receipt of a state retirement pension—or in expectation of one when they get to the relevant age—will have their pension based on their contribution record.

It is also true that Parliament over the years has amended how one qualifies for those contribution records—in some circumstances one can be at home and qualify for deemed contribution, which is all good and fair—but it is still very much a contribution-based system. If we suddenly went away from such a system, we would need to answer the question: how do we settle eligibility for state pension? Many of my constituents would not think it a good idea if we invited in migrant workers in their 60s to do two or three years’ work here, having settled here quite legally, and then said, “You can have a full state pension.” They would feel that was not quite what people had in mind, because all previous generations have had to be here and work for many years to gain that entitlement. So there would be issues of fairness.

If the Government’s proposition is only that they would quite like to get rid of all employee contributions, I suppose we could keep the contributory principle by proxy, because people would have an employer contribution record, which I guess modern computers could divulge in a form that made a proxy for the eligibility of that person for a pension. However, it would still leave a hole in the national insurance accounts, because with just employer revenue we would have less national insurance revenue coming in than pension going out, so there would need to be technical adjustments or the abolition of the fund and some other reassurance mechanism that people would get their entitlements for the state pension, however those new entitlements were calculated.

This is a complicated area. I have been around this policy area on several occasions in the past for various leaders, Chancellors and shadow Chancellors, and I have always concluded that it would not be a good idea to try to merge the whole of the national insurance taxation system with the whole of the income tax system. I still think there is some merit in keeping the contributory principle. It now mainly relates to the pension, which is probably what one settles for, given how much other benefits have gone up and how one could not put all that extra burden on additional national insurance contributions.

I therefore urge the Government to ask themselves questions about the timetable, affordability, wisdom and, above all, what they wish to do with the national insurance system as a whole, the contributory principle—which still means a lot, particularly to older users of the system—and what a more modern system might look like. That is Green Paper and policy discussion territory, and it is invited as part of this debate because the Opposition have tabled amendments to try to tease some of these matters out. We cannot settle this today, however; we need a lot of documentation and research to update some of the numbers and complexities, which I remember poring over in the past, so we can see how this might work.

So, it is good news that we are getting a tax cut, and good news that we can have some more tax cuts to come, but I ask the Government please not only to think about cutting national insurance, on which they have done a big and a good job, but to think about some of the other taxes, such as the VAT threshold and IR35, and such as taxes on energy where we are still completely uncompetitive in this country because energy taxation is so high, relative to China and the United States of America, let alone relative to our European competitors—they tend to have higher energy prices but we are still uncompetitive against them.

So we need to look at all of that, and when we are looking at future Budgets we need to work away at finding more headroom. I am very pleased that this national insurance cut is effectively allowed under Office for Budget Responsibility rules because the Government have seized the initiative on the productivity decline, which has been very sizeable over the covid period in the public services, and the Government are putting back around £20 billion of lost productivity in future years. That is a modest target given the scale of the decline, and it is another reason why the public finances have been thrown into disarray by covid: we did not merely have all the extra costs during the covid period, but we now have ongoing considerable extra cost to run our public services because we cannot even get them back up to the levels of productivity they had hit in 2019 before the covid crisis. We need to look at other ways of finding headroom. Productivity is a good mine for finding headroom so we can improve the quality and cut the cost of what we deliver in the public sector.

I still think the Bank of England should be stopped from selling its colossal bond portfolio at huge losses and sending the bill to the taxpayer. That is unsupportable and the fact that taxpayers and the Treasury have had to find £34 billion year to date to cover the whole range of Bank of England losses, which include capital losses on the bonds, is a sign of how out of control this is. We need to stop that kind of thing. It would also be very helpful in getting us out of this technical recession, because the monetary policy has shifted from being massively too expansionary and inflationary, as it was during the covid period, when some of us warned about the way the Bank carried on for too long with printing money and buying bonds. I was very happy with the first tranches because it was essential to offset, but the last tranche was over the top. The Bank has now lurched to being too tough and has therefore created a technical recession that we need not have had, and if it stopped quantitative tightening bond sales, that would start to ease the markets up a bit more and allow us to grow a bit more rapidly and therefore generate more tax revenue.

So I hope there is some food for thought here for the Government when they look at their progress so far. The national insurance cuts are good, but they should study the overall reform rather more carefully and think it through and not make it the only kind of tax cuts in the future. There are other tax cuts now that are more urgent and that would grow the economy more quickly, and they would be targeted rather more on enabling more people to work for themselves and more small businesses to grow, and on us having more capacity, particularly in high energy using areas.

UK Economy

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami]

I am coming to that.

The right hon. Lady started by talking about the Chancellor; as Economic Secretary, I am perfectly entitled to answer on behalf of the Department and I will do so today. The main thrust of her remarks was on growth; let me deal with that in detail.

The first point to recognise is the international context that we all find ourselves in. [Interruption.] It happens to be true. For example—to describe that international context—10 EU countries were in recession in 2023. In relation to forecasts, the Office for Budget Responsibility’s original forecast was that there would be a contraction of 1.5% in the economy; we have significantly outperformed that. As I have said, the Bank of England forecast the longest recession in 100 years; we have significantly outperformed that. On wages, I think this is the sixth month in a row when wages have been higher than inflation, which, as I have said, we have more than halved.

On the Chief Secretary, what she was explaining is that we were and are meeting our fiscal rule, which is that debt will be falling in the fifth year of the forecast excluding the Bank of England. That is what she explained, and that is what I am reiterating for the House. [Interruption.]

Labour Members do not like hearing this, but they have absolutely no plan on the economy. We have been clear about our plan, and it is starting to bear fruit with wages, with cutting taxes for working people starting in January, with higher business investment as a result of our full expensing in the autumn statement. The shadow Chancellor does not have to take it from me; the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the two fiscal events in 2023—the Budget and the autumn statement—would represent the largest increase to GDP that it has ever scored. What I say to her and the House is this: our plan is working; stick with the plan and do not throw it away with the Opposition.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

It is good news that unemployment has stayed low by European standards, and the economy is still generating plenty of job vacancies. Will the Government take more steps to help more people into those jobs, so that we can get faster growth, bring down the benefit bill and boost their incomes?

[Bim Afolami]

The whole House knows that my right hon. Friend is somewhat of an expert on matters relating to the economy. To answer his point specifically, the national insurance tax cut was scored at the last fiscal event—the autumn statement—as significantly increasing the number of people in work. Although I will not speculate on fiscal events, that point has been very much noted by me and the whole Treasury.

Finance Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 5th February 2024 Commons Chamber

I very much hope that the Government will accept both our new clauses. They will ensure that Ministers consider the loophole in air passenger duty that has given private jet passengers a tax freeze while everyone else is paying more, and consider what else is needed to make permanent full expensing as effective as possible. We believe that the Government must do all that they can to provide a stable and predictable environment that encourages business investment and boosts economic growth. During this debate I have set out our approach to providing that stability and predictability, including our commitments to cap corporation tax at 25% for the whole of the next Parliament, if we win the general election, and to maintain permanent full expensing. In the interests of giving businesses as much certainty as possible, I urge the Minister to say whether the Conservatives will join us by going into the general election with both those commitments from his party too.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I have declared my business interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I rise to support the Government’s new clause 5. I think it is good that they are considering what more they can do to promote investment in the United Kingdom’s generating capacity. We import far too much power already, especially when the sun does not shine and the wind does not blow, and on the basis of the Government’s ambitious forecasts and targets for much more of our energy to be delivered by electricity, I think that the position will get a lot worse quite quickly. Anything that the Government can do to encourage that additional investment in generating plant will be very welcome.

We will, of course, need a similar positive approach to grid and cable, because the more we electrify, the more we will need to convey that power from the rather remote locations where much of it comes from to the parts of the country that will need it. So my only worry about new clause 5 is that I am not sure it goes far enough. I think it is helpful in this limited number of cases, but I trust that the Chancellor, when it comes to the Budget—quite soon, on 6 March—will consider that the new clause is just a stepping stone and that we need to review again the very large tax impositions on energy of all kinds in this country. We now have double corporation tax in many cases and a range of windfall taxes that are often not really windfall taxes because they do not come off when the prices go down, although they are put on when the prices are going up.

That whole area needs considerable review, because we need to take seriously the fact that we are short of energy overall. We are short of electricity generating capacity and short of the means to route power from generation to use, and it would be an important stimulus for the British economy if we produced more of our own energy and generated more of our own electricity, and if we were thinking about having a surplus to export again instead of all too often being cruelly reliant upon imports of liquid natural gas and electricity, particularly from the continent.

I would also like briefly to refer to new clauses 4 and 6. They are wide-ranging new clauses that invite the Government to make assessments or reviews of features of this legislation, but they also wish to broaden it out to get the Government to review the impact of their general fiscal strategy on equalities, on investment, on the state of the corporate sector and on inequalities in our society. I am quite sure that the Government will be reviewing all those things as a matter of course, as this is often a continuous process. Indeed, many of the items covered in this request for special review are already reported on and form part of the normal process of policy preparation, and rightly so. If the Minister were to tell me that he would be grateful if I did not vote for these new clauses, I would have no problem with that—I am not sure that it would help to embody them in the legislation anyway; I think it would be a bit of an abuse of the legislation—but the Government need to respond to the general thirst for knowledge that these new clauses represent, and to understand that there are some serious issues here that need to be returned to. I trust that the Chancellor will return to them at the Budget.

Looking at the fiscal impact that these new clauses cover, I trust that in the preparation of the Budget we will have analysis in the Treasury of these particular measures, which are still going through from the last time, but I also hope that the Government will review the extraordinary losses of the Bank of England—I think that they have already run up to £34 billion in the current financial year. These are losses that the Treasury, and therefore the taxpayer, have to pay as they are incurred, and that is completely unacceptable. It imposes strains on the public accounts and on the Treasury at a time when we really do not need them and when we need that money for other purposes.

There are two simple measures that the Bank could take to stem the magnitude of those losses. First, it should not be selling bonds at a big loss in the market. The European Central Bank is not doing this, although it has a similar problem with a portfolio of very expensively acquired bonds. There is also the issue of the running losses on these holdings where the Bank of England is paying the full, much enhanced, short-term interest rate following its increases in it. This now greatly exceeds the revenue on the bonds because the Bank paid far too much for the bonds and there is a very low rate of interest on them. Those running losses are a problem. I think the Bank should look at what the European Central Bank is doing, in paying different interest rates on reserves held under this system so that it does not have such a large running loss.

[Richard Fuller]

Can my right hon. Friend tell me if I have got this right? In the commentary ahead of the Budget, we talk about wiggle room and the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast and about £5 billion or £10 billion here and there, but I think I heard him say that this matter was completely out of the control of the those on the Treasury Bench and this Parliament; that the Governor of the Bank of England could unilaterally decide to crystallise losses on whichever extent of bonds he wished to, and then put that loss into the calculations of the Chancellor of the day; and that the Chancellor would then have to work around that in order to work out what the fiscal expenditure, public expenditure and taxation would be. Is that actually the case? It sounds mightily undemocratic to me.

[John Redwood]

That is an interesting point of debate, but my understanding of the constitutional position is that it is not as bad as my hon. Friend is suggesting because all the bonds were acquired with the express permission of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Bank of England’s website says that the bond portfolio is held on behalf of the Treasury. Successive Chancellors of the Exchequer—beginning with the Labour Chancellor who first undertook quantitative easing and carried on by successive Conservative Chancellors—all signed an agreement with the Bank to say that they would indemnify against loss. So, given that the Government and this Parliament empowered the purchase of the bonds and now take responsibility for any losses on them, it seems perfectly reasonable for there to be a proper conversation about whether we want to take the losses.

I see nothing wrong with us here challenging the idea that, uniquely among the big quantitative easing programmes, it is the Bank of England that not only insists on selling the bonds at big losses but gets reimbursed. The ECB does not sell them in the market at big losses. The Federal Reserve Board sells them in the market at big losses but gets no money back; it simply puts on its balance sheet that it has lost a lot of money and takes the view that, as it is a central bank, it does not really matter if it loses a lot of money, because central banks create money and it is therefore not like a normal commercial business. So I hope that Ministers will look at this as part of the general assessment that is being invited by these new clauses.

I hope also that Ministers will look at the expenditure items in the overall accounts covered by new clause 4 on the public finances, because there has been a marked decline in public sector productivity in the years 2020 to 2023. It was quite without precedent in my experience of following public finances over the years, and this very sharp decline represents at least a £30 billion loss to our system, in that it now costs at least £30 billion a year more to run the group of public services covered by these figures than it did before the collapse in productivity. On top of that, there has also been the need for much bigger sums to cover inflation. This is not the inflation figure; this is the real loss figure from the productivity.

We are all sympathetic to the difficulties that lockdown and the transition out of lockdown caused, and there was bound to be disruption. Our public services were badly affected by that, as children could not go to school and hospitals were disrupted by covid, but that is now some time behind us and it seems perplexing that we cannot get those public services back to 2019 levels of productivity. I hear comment that maybe artificial intelligence will do it and that there needs to be a big investment in computers. Well, that should be on top. All that I am saying to the Government is that we can surely get back to 2019 productivity levels using techniques from 2019, which was very much pre-artificial intelligence and before the latest round of computerisation. Again, this is a big area that needs to be looked at as part of any review of the public finances.

The third area, which is also very large and very much in the news today, is that even more people in our country do not feel they can go back to work and that they need help at home because they are no longer able to work. The Government are working on some important programmes, through the Department for Work and Pensions, to show people that through a combination of part-time flexible working and working at home with proper support and training, and maybe with additional financial support to help them, they could go back to work for part of the time and make a contribution. We desperately need them, and I think their lives would be more rewarding. They would also be better off because we now have a benefits system that means it is always better to work. This should be a cross-party matter, because it is a problem that our nation as a whole faces. We can enrich those people’s lives, help to reduce the burden on the taxpayer and improve the net income of those concerned. Again, this involves many billions.

My point in making these three simple points apparent to the House is that there are very large sums of money indeed involved in bond losses and productivity, which we need to review because that would help in the formation of the next Budget. It would create more headroom, both for the tax cuts that we need if we are to promote growth, and for improved public service provision in the areas where the shoe is still pinching. I trust that will be part of any review that might emerge from these new clauses, or from the spirit of these new clauses. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is thinking about this, as we will have a Budget hard on the heels of this Finance Bill, which came out of the autumn statement. In these conditions of recovery, and given the need for faster growth, I welcome having more than one Budget a year, and the fact that we may have three fiscal events quite close to each other, if all goes well. They must promote growth and reduce taxes, and this is a good start.

I welcome new clause 5, but can we please have more? Can we please look at the headroom that I think I have helped to identify?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

Autumn Statement

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I have never hidden the fact that we took difficult decisions a year ago, such as freezing the thresholds, in order to get borrowing under control and in order to tackle inflation. However, because the economy since then has outperformed the expectations of nearly every independent body, we are able this time to reduce the tax burden, and I choose to reduce the things that will boost growth.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Let me first declare my business interests.

I welcome the measures to promote more investment and more growth, which is vital. We have lost about 800,000 self-employed people since February 2020. The national insurance measure will help a bit, but will my right hon. Friend look again at the way in which IR35 prevents them from expanding their businesses and getting contracts? The measures to promote the growth of small businesses are also welcome, but the VAT threshold acts as a strong disincentive to expand a business when it reaches a certain point.

[Jeremy Hunt]

I thank my right hon. Friend. I had extensive discussions with him in the run-up to the statement, including many discussions about the self-employed. Indeed, it was partly his advocacy of the role of the self-employed that made me so enthusiastic about making the national insurance changes that I was able to make.

I hear what my right hon. Friend says about IR35. We took our decision partly because of concerns about avoidance, but I am happy to look at that again. As for the VAT threshold, many other colleagues have made the same point. We do have the highest threshold in any major European country, and, indeed, any G7 country, but there is always this issue of the cliff edge, and my right hon. Friend is right to draw my attention to it.

Draft Postal Packets (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 General Committees

[The Chair]

I am grateful for that point of order. I remind the hon. Gentleman of my comments earlier about Mr Speaker’s ruling. It is not a one-off. Colleagues may not like it, but Mr Speaker has made his ruling.

As I set out just before the hon. Gentleman joined the Committee again, Standing Order No. 118(5) requires that the Committee debate the motion

“That the committee has considered”

the draft regulations. The Clerk read out the title earlier; I have already called the Minister, and the motion is already in progress. As I said earlier, colleagues, who have clearly been moved to make points of order with such strength, will have other opportunities to raise their concerns with the Government on the Floor of the House about the procedural events, shall we say, of the past few hours.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Pritchard. You were quite entitled not to take the points of order that I tried to make earlier or when we got back, although I would have liked to hear your consideration of them. It is a great pity that the Committee started in such a hurry when people were not back from the Division, including the representatives from Northern Ireland. Surely they, above all, should be here, given that this is such a fundamental measure for them.

I would like, in this point of order, to seek your guidance on how much time, according to your planning of this Committee, we now have left, because presumably the clock has been ticking for a little while during the Divisions. How could you regard that as at all adequate, given the intensity and range of views on what is a fundamental constitutional measure, as well as a very big economic measure, of great interest on both sides of the Irish sea?

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

If I may, I just want to set out the circumstances, because I very much hope that that will help with some of the concerns that have been raised. I know that there is a great deal of interest in these arrangements, so I am going to be absolutely clear with the Committee what these measures entail and, importantly, what impact they will have not just for our constituents, but for the United Kingdom family.

In short, someone in Great Britain sending a parcel to their friends or family in Northern Ireland will not need to engage with any customs processes. Nothing will change for those movements compared with today. Similarly, Northern Ireland recipients of parcels sent by their friends or family in Great Britain will not need to engage with any customs processes. Nothing changes compared with today. A grandchild in Blackpool—I pick Blackpool because that was where I went to school, and there is a wonderfully rich Irish community in and around Blackpool and Preston—sending a package to his grandparents in Belfast will not need to do anything new to send it and, importantly, the grandparents will not need to do anything new to receive it.

Businesses in Great Britain selling to consumers in Northern Ireland will not need to complete customs declarations, international or otherwise. Nothing changes. Northern Irish consumers buying from British sellers, including—hon. Members have raised this point with me—the likes of Amazon and other online shops, will not need to engage with any customs processes. Nothing changes. They will buy from the British seller and receive their goods without doing anything new; I say that very clearly for the sake of colleagues here today and for others outside this Committee Room who may be listening. Those facts are now recorded in Hansard and can be scrutinised. I say that very deliberately, so that those who have concerns understand exactly what we have set out in the framework.

The Windsor framework explicitly removes those requirements on goods being sold to Northern Ireland consumers and, of course, on goods being sent to friends and family. There will be no routine checks or controls applied to parcels. There will be interventions only on the basis of a risk-based, intelligence-led approach. That means that the overwhelming majority of parcels will not be subject to checks.

Parcels sent from a business in Great Britain to a business in Northern Ireland will be treated the same as equivalent freight movements. They can be moved through the new green lane when eligible, when it is introduced from October 2024.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

I must give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham, and then I will give way to the hon. Member for North Antrim.

[John Redwood]

The form of this statutory instrument is to amend regulations relating to foreign postal packets. It includes GB-NI postal packets alongside foreign postal packets in important matters in the regulations specified. How can the Government defend that? They are effectively treating Northern Ireland and GB as foreign countries to each other, accepting a form of regulation designed for a true international border and clearly violating the terms of the internal market legislation governing the United Kingdom? [Interruption.]

[Victoria Atkins]

If I may, I will address that point, and then I promise I will come to the hon. Member for North Antrim in due course. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham used that language, so that I can make it clear for the purposes of Hansard that this is not about trying to differentiate or draw lines around our precious Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

Again, I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s intervention as fully as I can. The Windsor framework does not introduce any discrimination against anyone. Businesses do not have human rights in the same way that individuals do. Articles 6, 2 and 8 do not apply to businesses. On his point about the business treatment, the Windsor framework is a positive step forward from what would have happened under the Northern Irish protocol. We have to operate under what would have been because I cannot pretend that the protocol did not exist or that those strictures would not come in in due course. As I say, that is not a commentary on what was negotiated at the time under those extremely difficult circumstances, but the United Kingdom and the EU have got around the table, acknowledged the significant difficulties that have been identified and come up with the Windsor framework, which answers all those concerns and does so, I would say, in a way that really moves our relationship with the EU forward.

[John Redwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

If I may, I will make a little progress, but I hope that colleagues feel that I have been generous with interventions.

The Government need to ensure that the powers of HMRC and Border Force are sufficient to allow them to monitor the rules for movements of parcels and that, where certain requirements are in place—the point my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East made—for movements intended ultimately for the EU, they can be enforced. We need to be able to determine that parcels destined for the EU can be detected and to ensure that they follow the requirements of the red lane.

I know from conversations outside the Committee Room that some colleagues have read the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report into the rationale for bringing the instrument into force on 31 August. As I have said, some existing rules apply to prevent illicit movements of certain categories of goods, such as invasive species or ozone-depleting chemicals, which is why we are bringing these powers forward to HMRC and Border Force at this time, rather than waiting over a year.

The Committee’s report also noted the arguments submitted to it that the regulations would contravene the principle of unfettered access within the UK by introducing a customs border. Indeed, I have carefully noted the submission by the Democratic Unionist party about its concerns relating to the Good Friday agreement. We acknowledge, as I have said throughout, that there are a range of views on the Windsor framework itself, but these regulations are discrete and relate solely to the powers available to HMRC and Border Force. That said, I hope that I have been able to clarify for hon. Members and hon. Friends what the framework does and does not do, and therefore what the powers granted by the regulations will monitor and enforce.

[Victoria Atkins]

I genuinely thank my hon. Friend and acknowledge the spirit in which he asked those questions.

Historically, the role of postal parcels has not necessarily been defined in freight. As I said before, with that precise wording we are trying to ensure mirroring for this small cohort—so not between individuals or between businesses to Northern Irish individuals; that does not change. However, we do want to ensure that the mirroring in relation to green lanes and red lanes of freight is clear when it comes to those parcels.

We have been dreaming up interesting examples today in preparation for this, but I have used the example of lace. A business in Great Britain may produce lace and send it to a business in Belfast that makes dresses. If that business sells the dresses within Northern Ireland or back to GB, it will not be affected; it will not see any changes. This kicks in only if some of the dresses are sold to Dublin or further afield. We have tried to ensure that the regulations mirror each other, whether one sends a parcel by post or in a great big container.

I reiterate that the vast majority of parcels will move without any additional requirements on parcel recipients in Northern Ireland. We have pushed genuinely very hard to ensure that the interests of Northern Irish consumers, and of GB businesses selling to Northern Ireland, are protected. There are huge improvements compared with the previous protocol, but we need to manage the risk in relation to movements across the Irish border in order to avoid EU tariffs and regulatory controls. We fully accept that this is a trade-off, but we have put protecting people and businesses in Northern Ireland at the very forefront of our efforts, to try to ensure that we get to a proportioned approach in this mechanism. I hope that answers my hon Friend’s question.

[John Redwood]

I thought that, in law, and certainly politically, the Good Friday agreement took precedence over other agreements, given its importance. How is this measure in any way compatible with the Good Friday agreement when it does not have the consent of the Unionist community—an important underlying principle of the whole agreement? I would also like to assure the Minister that I do not use the phrase “hard compromise”, and I have not been recommending these kinds of proposals.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am sorry; I did not catch my right hon. Friend’s last point. Would he repeat it?

[John Redwood]

I thought the Minister implied earlier that I thought that this was a hard compromise. I do not; I think it is bad policy.

[Victoria Atkins]

I think my right hon. Friend misheard me. I was referring to the Northern Ireland Minister, the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker). I would not dream of putting words in the mouth of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham.

A point was made about the Road Haulage Association. The answer to that intervention is that the powers were available to Border Force in respect of international movements. We understand the sensitivities and the concerns raised about making powers available for GB to NI movements, but we would say that that is not the same as making these international movements.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham asked a very important question about the Good Friday agreement. We do not accept that this is contrary to the Good Friday agreement. These regulations are in fact an enabler to the agreement that we have negotiated. As I said, we have ensured that consumer interests in Northern Ireland and the interests of British businesses selling to Northern Ireland are protected, but that means that an incentive now exists to move goods into Northern Ireland and take them across the Irish border to avoid EU tariffs. If we are to manage that risk—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

That is one of the reasons why I say this is dynamite, because it exposes the lie being peddled at present that the Windsor framework actually cements us into the United Kingdom. It does not; it pushes us further out.

The second point I want to make is that businesses have been kept in the dark. In fact, the scrutiny Committee pointed out that many businesses do not know what the arrangements are, and the Government have not even been able to give an answer on what the new arrangements are going to be. What will they entail? What provision will there be? The Minister argues that there will be no effect and that, if anything, be better for person-to-person parcels. She says that there will be no effect on business to consumers and that there will be some effect on business to business. The truth of the matter, though, is that once this legislation is passed, the EU will have total control over what movements need to be checked, and our Government will have no say about what happens in Northern Ireland.

[John Redwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that there has already been diversion of trade away from GB into Northern Ireland, and is he worried that the draft regulations will create a lot more diversion of trade away from GB?

[Sammy Wilson]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right: that is the problem. In the absence of detailed knowledge about what the new arrangements will be, businesses will simply turn their back on Northern Ireland. I spoke to a constituent today who wanted to buy a mattress from Argos. Although Argos clearly brings goods into Northern Ireland, that was obviously inconvenient for it and it simply said, “We don’t sell mattresses to Northern Ireland any longer.” That is exactly what is happening. Even if the Minister is correct, the threat that there will be different arrangements for taking goods and postal packages into Northern Ireland will discourage businesses from entering into those kinds of arrangements. We are already seeing the diversion of trade.

The Government’s argument is that the draft regulations improve the situation, but actually, they do not. If we had stopped even with the provisions of the protocol, the grace periods would have prevented this from happening. It does not happen at present. If the Government really want there to be no interference, why not stick with the grace periods? Why not make it clear that the regulations are not needed? There has been no leakage during the grace periods, and there is no evidence that hazardous goods and so on are moving into the EU. Why did the Government not take that stance? Why are the Government still not taking that stance? There would then be no need for the regulations.

Mortgage Charter

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Hunt]

I will deal with the right hon. Lady’s specific points first. She says these measures should be mandatory, so why did Labour oppose the intervention power in the Financial Services and Markets Bill that would have made that possible? She said she wants action for savers, and I have indeed been talking to banks about action for savers and will keep the House updated. What she carefully did not mention is that we secured on Friday more than Labour committed to, because our measures provide protection for people who miss payments not for six months, but for 12 months.

The main point is that the right hon. Lady wants people to think she is fiscally responsible and will not take risks with inflation, so why on earth is she committed to borrowing £28 billion more a year when, as a former Bank of England economist, she should know that that will be inflationary and push up the cost of mortgages? Members need not listen to me; they should listen to people such as Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, who said about Labour’s plans that

“additional borrowing both pumps more money into the economy, potentially”—[Interruption.]

The right hon. Lady might not want to hear this but this is what Paul Johnson says about Labour’s plans:

“additional borrowing both pumps more money into the economy, potentially increasing inflation, and also drives up interest rates.”

It is Labour’s mortgage bombshell, hidden in plain sight.

The right hon. Lady does not want people to notice the real comparison here, which is that her party faced an economic crisis in 2008, just as this Government did last year, but we are taking the difficult decisions to restore sound money and the public finances while they ducked each and every one of those decisions, ran out of money and left it to others to clear up the mess.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given that we do not want too much pressure on mortgage holders, who will be struggling, will the Government launch a series of supply-side measures to increase the supply of things that are short, to promote more home-grown food and home-produced energy, and above all to work with public sector employees and managers to have a productivity revolution in the public services where there has been a collapse in output?

[Jeremy Hunt]

As so often, my right hon. Friend is absolutely right and it is in supply-side measures that we see the long-term solution to the inflation problem that we and many other countries face. That is why the Budget was focused on labour supply measures such as a massive reduction in the cost of childcare—a reduction of up to 60% for families with young children—and it is why my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is launching the very productivity review my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) has called for many times, to make sure we are getting better value for public money spent.

Cost of Living Increases

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In a moment I will set out exactly what interventions we have made and how we are continuing to intervene to support the most vulnerable in our communities across the United Kingdom.

The best thing we can do to help people’s money go further is to deliver on our plan to halve inflation and grow the economy. In doing so, we will meet the Prime Minister’s five pledges to the British people. Three of those are economic—two of which I have mentioned—and reflect people’s priorities. Inflation makes us all poorer. It has to be tackled head-on, which is why, working closely with the Bank of England, we are bearing down on it. We are also growing the economy.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm the IMF figures that in 2020 to 2022—that important three-year period after we left the EU—the UK was the fastest growing economy of the G7? The Opposition’s forecast that the UK might be a poorer performer this year is just a forecast, and most forecasts are usually wrong.

[John Glen]

As always, my right hon. Friend is on the money. The point is that forecasts predict many different things. I have been in the Treasury for nearly five years; forecasts for every fiscal event rarely prove to be true at the next fiscal event.

We must continue to focus on taking the right decisions, decision by decision, and prove those forecasters wrong. That means long-term, sustainable and healthy growth that pays for our NHS and schools, finds jobs for young people and provides a safety net for older people, all while making our country one of the most prosperous in the world. It also means reducing debt, which we are on track to do. In fact, because of the decisions we have taken and the improved outlook for the public finances, underlying debt in five years’ time is now forecast to be nearly three percentage points lower than back in the autumn. That means more money for our public services and a lower burden on future generations—deeply held Conservative values, which we put into practice today. It is these steps that will make our country and our people better off. We are also taking action to shelter the most vulnerable while we achieve these longer-term ambitions for the economy.

In the Budget, we announced that the energy price guarantee would remain at £2,500 per year until July 2023. That was funded in part by the energy profits levy that this Government introduced last year, recognising that profit levels in the sector had increased significantly due to very high oil and gas prices caused by global circumstances, including of course Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The levy is expected to raise just under £26 billion between 2022-23 and 2027-28, on top of around £25 billion in tax receipts from the sector in the same period through the permanent tax regime. The energy price guarantee measure will save the average family a further £160 on top of the energy support measures already announced, bringing total Government support for energy bills to £1,500 for the typical household since October 2022.

It is worth recapping those measures. This Government have helped all domestic electricity customers with £400 off their energy bills through the energy bills support scheme. The energy bills support scheme alternative funding provides £400 to around 900,000 households that are not supplied by domestic electricity contracts and are unable to receive support automatically through the energy bills support scheme.

Our support has not stopped there. Alongside holding down energy bills, freezing fuel duty and increasing universal credit, we are giving up to £900 in cost of living payments to households on means-tested benefits. Starting from today, over 8 million families across the UK will receive the first £301 cost of living payment from the Government. That is the first of up to three payments for those on means-tested benefits, totalling £900 through 2023-24. Those entitled do not need to apply for the payment or do anything to receive it. The payments will be accompanied by a payment of £150 for people on eligible disability benefits this summer and a payment of £300 on top of winter fuel payments for pensioners at the end of 2023.

These are carefully designed interventions, targeted at the most vulnerable across communities in the United Kingdom. The latest payment follows on from the £650 cost of living payment delivered to households on means-tested benefits by the Government in 2022, with an additional £150 for individuals on disability benefits and £300 for pensioner households.

The Government of course need to recognise that some people will fall into difficulties. They have enabled local authorities to provide additional support with the cost of household essentials through a 12-month extension to the household support fund in England worth £1 billion, including Barnett funding. We are also ensuring that more than 10 million working-age families will see an increase in their benefit payments from April 2023, based on the September inflation figure of 10.1%.

While we shelter the most vulnerable, the public also rightly expect us to look further to the future, making sure we are taking steps to grow sustainably and securely in the long term. This Government are unashamedly pro-growth, because expanding the productive capacity of the economy is the only way to solve the productivity puzzle, which has dogged us for decades, and improve living standards for all.

One reason we are held back is because a great number of people have left the labour market altogether. As a Conservative, I believe there is virtue in work and getting people into work is the best way to avoid the ills and perils of poverty. There has been an increase of more than 1.5 million working households since 2010, which shows that we are on the side of working families. That includes our new game-changing childcare offer that will entitle working parents in England to 30 hours of free childcare per week, once their child is nine months old, and close the gap between parental leave ending and the current childcare offer.

In addition to making provision on free childcare, the Budget set out to remove barriers for the long-term sick and disabled, for jobseekers and for older people with our pension tax reforms. Part of the plan is welfare reform to support those who have been disengaged from the labour market. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has introduced a White Paper setting out reforms that will support more people who are long-term sick or disabled to try work without any fear of losing their benefits. Other policies that we announced at the Budget will then ensure that those individuals are better supported to stay and succeed in work. Overall, the Office for Budget Responsibility expects the spring Budget package to result in 110,000 more individuals in the labour market by the end of the forecast period.

The UK saw the fastest growth in the G7 over 2021 and 2022. Cumulative growth over the 2022 to 2024 period is predicted to be higher than that of Germany or Japan, and at a similar rate to that of France or the US. We have halved unemployment, cut inequality and reduced the number of workless households by 1 million. We have protected pensioners, those on low incomes and those with disabilities. We are continuing to lay the groundwork for a vibrant, innovative and growing economy that benefits communities and families up and down the country.

Having sat and listened to the shadow Minister—I was not smiling, but reflecting on what I heard—I think it is very unfortunate that the Labour party continues to play politics and snipe from the sidelines without a clear and coherent plan.