Fortifying the Fiscal Framework (Economic Affairs Committee Report)

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this very perceptive and timely report, and I congratulate all those who prepared it.

I agree that the current fiscal rules system set up by the previous Conservative Government, and extended and modified by this Government, cannot possibly achieve its main aim, which should be to control debt better. Whether there is a five-year target or a three-year target does not really make much difference. Some people thought that that was a welcoming tightening, but the underlying truth is that year 3 or year 5 never comes and there is no pressure on the Government to make sure that they meet it. By the time they get to that year, it is no longer year 3, so it no longer has a biting target. That is clearly absurd.

I also agree with the committee saying that the OBR’s role has to be that of an independent forecaster and that the Government should be able to talk to it but should not be bound by it. Obviously, a good Government would wish to explain why they disagreed, or should explain how they intend to handle debt and deficit if they do not like the figures that are being produced.

In 2010, when this family of targets first started after the banking crash and the explosion of debt and expenditure over the period of that crash, public spending—that is, total managed expenditure—was £760 billion. This year, according to the latest forecast, it will be £1,449 billion. That is an increase of 90% over the years. I cannot remember a year, until we got to a Labour Government, when I was not told that we were cutting public spending, but spending is up 90% in cash terms. The inflation check from the Bank of England says that there was 62% inflation over that period, so there was a fairly substantial real increase, which occurred in most years. Some individual programmes were cut, and some priorities could not be pursued, but it is difficult to see that we have had a rigorous set of controls over either spending or borrowing.

If we look at where these targets came from, ultimately, they are derived from our Maastricht targets, which we were meant to obey when we were a member of the European Union. Noble Lords may remember that there were two treaty-driven targets. We were to keep debt at 60% of GDP or lower. Every country bar one, I think, broke that—including the United Kingdom—so it was transposed into something saying, “As you are over 60%, you should start getting your debt down towards a 60% target”; that was transformed into our fiscal rules after we left. There was also the 3% running deficit ceiling, which, again, has been often broken; it was broken by us in our period of membership. This Government have revised and tightened that by saying that there should still be a 3% deficit ceiling, but only to allow 3% of GDP borrowing for capital purposes, and that the aim should be to have a current balance. That is a good amendment to a target that does not work.

Where one needs to go from here is to say, as the committee does, that we are close to running out of money—and the people who lend it to us are close to running out of patience—for us to carry on spending at the rate we are doing. We have had three very big spending increases over the past 20 years: over the banking crash, with a big increase in debt; over Covid; and post Covid. I do not think that enough was done to control the spending coming out of the Covid exceptional expenditure; the extra borrowing was complicated, with a massive programme of quantitative easing. We then had, of course, a very substantial policy decision to go for more spending and more borrowing by the incoming Government in 2024.

I think that we would be much better off if, on a cross-party basis, we could agree on two overarching aims for the UK economy, based on one of our targets at the moment and some of the American experience. We should have as our aims 2% inflation and 2% growth, so that all policy and Bank of England considerations recognise that there can be trade-offs between those two, and we should embed the 2% inflation target on the Government as well as on the Bank of England, because inflation in public sector costs is one of the main forces of inflation at the moment; that should be taken much more seriously by the public sector.

In the brief time I have, I want to mention two expensive quirks in our figures, which I have highlighted and in which I would like other people to get interested; I find them fascinating, and they might be of use to those conducting public policy. The first is that Rachel Reeves made a decision, which I and my party condemned as being anti-jobs and anti-vacancies, to increase national insurance. The curious financial thing about it was that, of course, the bulk of the national insurance revenue has to be paid into the National Insurance Fund. That is now accumulating a surplus of £12 billion extra each year and has a surplus of £100 billion already, so I am not quite sure why she wanted a bigger surplus in the fund; it has to be lent back to the Government at the base rate.

The second funny money is the dreadful situation with the ownership of bonds by the Bank of England. The latest OBR figure says that the losses will come down a bit: it now thinks that, from 2022, when the losses started, until 2033, the losses will be £228 billion. Can we not get that figure down a bit?

Government Debt

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 16th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)]

I have read that document. I point out that, in 2025-26, our borrowing will be the lowest for six years and for the first time since 2004 we are projected to borrow less than the OECD average. As regards external evaluation of the fiscal rules, I will read from the IMF’s 2025 Article IV report, which said that

“the plans that have been put forward by the UK Treasury strike a good balance between providing favorable conditions for growth, and the emphasis on public investment is welcome in that regard and safeguarding fiscal sustainability”.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, since September 2022, there has been a big sales programme of longer-dated bonds by the Bank of England to drive up longer-term interest rates. Can the Minister tell us how much, over the past two years, the Government and Treasury have had to send the Bank of England to cover the enormous losses they have heaped up by selling these bonds at low prices needlessly?

Taxation (Energy and Vehicles) Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

2nd reading & Committee negatived & 3rd reading
Tuesday 14th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I fully support my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe in her general statement about what needs to be done and in her specific criticisms and support for measures in this Bill. It is right that the best way out of the financial hole the Government find themselves in again is by growth. That is a cross-party idea on which we all agree.

Unfortunately, this Government have one main hope, which is that a closer relationship with the EU and taking more EU laws into our system will give them extra growth, whereas all the evidence of the past shows the opposite. Our growth rate halved when we were in the EEC compared with 20 years before we joined it, because of the damage that laws and extra taxes did to our economy after we signed up to first the customs union and then the complete single market. If we look at the leaks and possibilities around the reset, it is practically all cost and no benefit—it is Britain giving in and becoming a rule taker. The rules will be more restrictive on some of our industries that were beginning to benefit from not having to take on all the extra rules that the EU has been legislating. There will be a considerable financial bill with the extra costs of Erasmus, the administrative levies, maybe a solidarity levy and the loss of £6 billion of fish over a 12-year period. I am afraid the Government will not find growth there.

We are today focusing on this set of three limited measures. Like my noble friend, I think two of them are modestly beneficial. It seems perfectly reasonable to increase the mileage allowances given the way that costs have gone over recent years. The previous Government had not done it, and therefore it is perfectly welcome. It is also helpful to a haulage industry in great distress—because volumes are not ideal and because wage, tax and, above all, energy costs have gone up—to be given some relief, though the Government have chosen a rather modest form of relief in this VED reduction.

I have two criticisms. First, I am not sure that a year is the right period. I do not think we can guarantee that, miraculously, in a year’s time, other costs will reduce and they will not need this help any more. It would have been wiser to keep it open-ended to see what happens, particularly to energy costs. It is also concentrated on the heavier, bigger end of the commercial fleet. There are a lot of other businesses, particularly small businesses, struggling with the cost of smaller vehicles where there is no help offered. That is a pity, and it would be good if the Government looked again at the full range of businesses and the question of duration, because it may be that this judgment, while helpful, does not go far enough and is not over the right time period.

The biggest item, which I object to quite strongly, is the generator levy. It is quite true, as the Minister pointed out, that this was first introduced by the previous Government. I liked it no more then than I like it now; I made critical remarks to Ministers and tried to get them not to do it. If you are going to impose a windfall tax, it should be a genuine windfall tax geared to a level of price or profit that you have decided to designate as windfall. What has happened is that the last Government and now this one have built this windfall tax into all their Budgets as a regular feature, regardless of what the regional price of oil and gas turns out to be in the months or years ahead. It would be much more convincing as a windfall measure if it were geared to a price target and/or a profit target, came in and was fiercer when there was genuine windfall profit and dropped out as soon as there was not. The Minister will know, observing world markets, that with the continuing uncertainty created by the Ukraine war and the war in the Middle East, we are seeing pretty big volatile swings, particularly in oil prices. That will make a huge difference to the profitability of the businesses being taxed through windfall taxes. I would like the Government to think again about the whole principle of windfall taxation. If they want a windfall tax, it should be targeted and very clearly based on genuine windfall profits.

I have one further worry about the Government’s strategy over energy, which is illustrated by the tinkering measures in this legislation. They have gone in favour of very dear energy, with very high carbon taxes, emissions trading taxes and general impositions—fuel duties and all the rest of it. They say that they have net-zero reasons for this, but I think they also have revenue-raising reasons. They see it as one of the easiest ways forward without violating the central manifesto pledges. Now they realise, correctly, that they are overdoing it. With all the tax, the cost of energy is extreme. This country has a particularly virulent case of it, which is making us uncompetitive and losing us jobs and business, and therefore other tax revenues. So now the Government are in the business of finding ways of parcelling out modest subsidies or rebates on this excessive taxation in the hope that they will see them through and enable them to keep some business going.

I fear that the Government should come to the conclusion that they are not giving enough back to enough businesses and people. If Ministers look out there in the marketplace, they will see jobs being cancelled or lost, vacancies not becoming available, turnover not growing and profits turning into losses. There are factory closures coming through in all the high energy-using areas that we have talked about before, and the closure of oil and gas is having knock-on effects for refining and petrochemicals. We are seeing an industrial collapse mainly led and generated by excessively expensive energy. Offering a few bits back will not solve the problem.

I am glad the Government have now expanded the number of businesses that will get some kind of energy rebate to 10,000, but that is by no means all the businesses out there that are suffering badly from dear energy. They are not offering enough back because they are taking lumps out. They also wish to make it worse by joining the even more expensive EU carbon trading and emissions trading schemes, and introducing the CBAM to catch anybody who dares import higher energy-using products. I ask them please to think again. I want them to succeed in creating more jobs, promoting growth and getting investment and incomes up. This will do the opposite; dear energy is a killer.

Further Education Colleges: Recovery of VAT

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 9th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her question. I hear what she says and reassure her that the Government are aware of this discrepancy and are actively looking into it.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Why do the Government so often favour a model that takes a lot of tax off institutions, people and companies and then has to give some back by way of grant to help pay for it? Is that not just a double handling charge that we do not need?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Yes, although overhauling the entire VAT system would be something of a long-term project.

Middle East: Economic Response

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the informed comments that he makes. As he said, he is a very informed commentator on these issues. I think that the last time we were discussing the same topic he asked a very similar question, and I shall give him a very similar answer. We convened the supermarkets to talk to them about the cost of food. The Chancellor also convened food producers to talk to them about security of supply and the issues that the noble Lord talks about. He mentioned fertiliser and other incredibly important inputs into the sector. The Government are, of course, in very close contact with the industry and are developing all contingency measures, depending on how the situation develops. I think none of us quite knows how the Iran war will develop and the impacts that it will have, and obviously the severity of the impact will depend on its duration. However, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government take it seriously—I think that was his core question, to make sure that we are taking it seriously—and we are obviously preparing for all eventualities.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

The Minister is right that they are taking it seriously. Given the huge pressures from fertiliser prices, energy prices and higher taxes, will the Government as a matter of urgency to tackle food prices cut the taxes on farms and redistribute some of the subsidy to promote food growing, which is what we want?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

We are spending billions of pounds on exactly what the noble Lord asks about. I am not sure how he would fund the tax cut that he proposes, but, as I have said before, unfunded tax cuts are certainly not the way to help the cost of living crisis.

Supermarkets: Voluntary Price Caps

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Will the Minister congratulate the supermarkets on being competitive, with good prices, despite all the costs the Government are imposing on them? Does he agree that their net profit margins are very low, showing that the problem of rising food prices rests elsewhere?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

As I said yesterday in response to similar questions, we want the most competitive supermarket sector we can possibly get, and it is not for the Government to tell supermarkets how to do their jobs.

Middle East: Economic Update

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I do not have a crystal ball and I cannot look ahead to everything the Government will be doing, but I can tell the noble Lord, as I said to his noble friend, that we are reforming the welfare system.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

In Washington, the Chancellor pledged to avoid unnecessary trade restrictions. Can we look forward to the Government cancelling the bad idea of introducing a large carbon border tax or tariff, which would be a penalty on British consumers and a further boost to costs, making British industry less competitive?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

No, and I disagree with the noble Lord, as I am sure I do on many issues. He talks about trade restrictions. He obviously championed a Brexit which put up massive trade restrictions with our nearest trading partners—

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Tariff free!

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It was estimated at the time to be costing us some 4%, subsequently estimated to be 8%, of GDP, so he has put up massive tariff barriers with our biggest partner, which is not something that is in favour of free trade. He talks about it being tariff free, but he knows that the trade barriers in place are equivalent to some 20% in terms of tariff.

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.