European Union Fiscal Union

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 14th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Cash]

I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend has said. We are at a crossroads and it is a very dangerous crossroads. We have to get it right. It simply is not good enough to appease the European institutions by going along with their ideas when we have our own national interest to stand by, support and protect. We are not just talking about institutional arguments; we are talking about real people, their real daily lives, the unemployed and the people who cannot increase the enterprise of their businesses.

I was deeply concerned in my exchanges with the Prime Minister. I put a question to him on the question of the single market. In reply, he made it clear that he was conscious of a fact, which I had put in a pamphlet that I had published the day before. The pamphlet, by the way, is called “It’s the EU stupid”, because we have got to a stage where it is obvious that the EU is at the root of so many of these problems.

On the question of the single market, I pointed out to the Prime Minister that if there is a fiscal union of certain member states it is inevitable, as a matter of solidarity, that they will use the treaties to transfer their own wishes, through majority voting and a block vote, in a way that will be contrary to our own domestic economic interests. What would be the point of a fiscal union if, when it came to questions of legislation relating to the economy, the member states were not prepared to vote together? They will. When they do, and they outvote us, that will gravely undermine our competitiveness and our ability to grow small and medium-sized businesses. It will affect our growth. It will damage and destroy our prospects of reducing the deficit, because it will lead to a reduction in growth, which is already stagnant.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend think that we should allow the fiscal union to go ahead, for those who wish to join it, if our Government negotiated for us independent democratic control over everything here that mattered to us as the price for making that sacrifice?

[Mr Cash]

The short answer is that it would depend on how the renegotiation went. If the renegotiation was entirely in line with protecting fully our own interests, if it were guaranteed that we were not tied to the existing arrangements by a treaty that drew us in to all the adverse consequences of being part of this overall European Union in the shape and form that it has at the moment and if we could manage to achieve the perfect answer, then that would be a good idea. However, I do not think that that is the way it is going to go. I think that we will put forward positions, if we ever get to the point of renegotiating the treaties. A meeting took place a couple of days ago in which it was clear that a very large number of MPs in the Conservative party want renegotiation. Some of us have been arguing for that for 20 years. However, the fact is that that is the position in the party as a whole. The question is not only whether we want to renegotiate, but how that would be done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the situation causes the electorate to believe that we have a dishonest political debate in this country? We are having a big argument over the Vickers report and how and when it should be implemented, whereas it will all be settled under the capital requirements directive, CRD IV. I do not see the point of the Vickers report.

[Mr Cash]

That is all part of the problem. I have been on the European Scrutiny Committee for 26 years now, and over and over again I have found that legislation brought to this House is based on European legislation, but that is never disclosed. People do not say, “Oh, by the way, we have got to do this, therefore we are going to,” so we go through a charade of passing legislation as if we have control over it. The Whips move in like the clappers, saying, “You can’t possibly vote against this, because it’s all based on European legislation that we have already agreed to under the European Communities Act.” In reality, we are being governed by Europe, and that is my greatest objection—plus the democratic question, which the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton has mentioned—and why I got so exercised about the Maastricht treaty. We have gone beyond that now, and what we are faced with is much more critical, but we can remedy it if we renegotiate the treaties.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Now we can see why the former Chancellor has said that the Labour party had no credible economic policy. The shadow Chancellor had all summer to think of that question, and the best he came up with was that we were not regulating the banks. He was the City Minister when the City exploded. We have taken action better to regulate the banks. We set up the commission that will report next week. As for downgraded numbers, the fastest falling numbers around here are his economic credibility numbers.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

It would be good to get more tax out of RBS, a state-owned bank, but unfortunately it is still loss making. Will the Chancellor or a relevant Minister have an urgent meeting with its executives so that they can have a better plan for cutting risks, selling assets and making some money for the taxpayer?

[Mr Osborne]

My right hon. Friend is, of course, right that the British banking system has had its challenges—not least over the summer, with its share prices. We are in regular discussion with the banks about that, of course, and we will of course have many discussions about the future structure of banking. We need a profitable banking sector that lends to the real economy. We have in place targets to see an increase in lending to small businesses. But my right hon. Friend is absolutely right that a key part of the recovery is a return to health for the financial services industry and the financial system.

Global Economy

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

We have announced an enterprise zone for Sheffield and we will have further announcements to make on enterprise zones in the coming weeks. The evidence of the past 10 years is that in important regions of our country—I have in mind the statistics for the west midlands, rather than for the hon. Lady’s constituency—private sector employment fell over the decade before the financial crash. That shows that that model of growth we pursued, based on the biggest housing boom of any country—with the possible exception of Ireland—the most over-leveraged banks and the highest budget deficit, ultimately led to ruin. We need a different model of growth in which we grow the private sector in areas such as Sheffield and get real, lasting jobs, rather than assuming that we can just use Government spending to create them.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

As someone who believes that we need to get the deficit down and do more to assist growth to help that, will the Chancellor look at the dreadful losses at RBS and the big hit on capital values on its shares, and see what more can be done to manage that colossal pool of assets in the interests of economic growth and the taxpayer?

[Mr Osborne]

We of course continue to monitor the situation at RBS and all the British banks very closely. There is a concern in the financial markets about the capitalisation and liquidity provisions of banks in many countries. I have to say that those concerns have not been expressed at the moment about the UK. We passed the stress tests well and we have a strong liquidity provision in place for the banks, including RBS, and the markets can therefore have confidence in British banks.

Taxation: Domicile

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Redwood]

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate he has made of the number of non-domiciled UK taxpayers who will pay the annual levy in (a) 2011-12 and (b) 2012-13;

Finance Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I thank my hon. Friend. One of the delightful things about his intervention is the increase in my education.

Over seven years from 1990, tax relief for the over-60s cost £560 million. However, that included a period when the relief was across all taxpayer rates. In 1994, that was reduced to apply to the basic rate of tax only. Unlike in my proposal, the relief started then at 60, not at 65, so my proposal would reduce the cost to the Revenue in real terms compared to pre-1997.

In 1997 the Labour Government cancelled the tax relief for pensioners, and Western Provident Association estimated that 40% of pensioners would discontinue their private health service. Which? magazine reported in 2002 that private health insurance coverage was lowest in the 65-plus age group. Those who choose to have personally funded private health insurance pay twice for their health—premiums and tax. It would be safe to assume that nigh on 100% of those aged 65 and above are personally funding their health insurance. It is their choice, and for many it may mean sacrificing other choices that may affect their lifestyle.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend also give us some idea of the saving in NHS expenses that results from people taking out cover and going privately?

[Sir Paul Beresford]

I would love to, but I am numerically dyslexic and English is my second language so I have some difficulty. I am sure that the next time I raise this possibility, I can bring those facts forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not understand why a low-paid worker in South Stanley in my constituency who has worked hard all his or her life should be given no tax relief or assistance and should pay their taxes just to give a tax relief and perk to individuals who not only might be able to pay for care, but who have an advantage over them. We should seek to ensure equal access to health care.

I understand what has been said about waiting lists and the health service, but when I was elected in 2001 my constituency contained two old hospitals, one of which—the old workhouse—was a disgrace. We now have two new hospitals, thanks to a Labour Government. The hon. Member for Mole Valley mentioned hip and knee replacements, and I can tell him that the industrial legacy of a mining community meant that my area had a long waiting list; it was not uncommon for people to wait for more than two years. I recall people coming to my surgery arguing about how they could get up the list any faster. Waiting lists have more or less been abolished over the intervening 10-year period, which is testament to the changes the previous Labour Government made and the investment we put in. Investment in the health service should be about ensuring equal access to care, not about giving a tax perk to a very small section of the population—the less than 5% who actually have private health insurance—as this proposal seeks to do.

[Mr Redwood]

I would be more persuaded by this argument if the Labour party had, when in office, prevented the rich from buying the health care they wanted when they wanted it. The truth is that neither the Labour party in office, nor the coalition Government, have had any intention of preventing the rich from using their power and wealth to get the health care they want. The new clause is a measure to enable people who are not that rich to be able to do so.

[Mr Jones]

The facts do not bear that out, and I shall return to that point in a moment. If people wish to spend their money on health care, that is entirely up to them—I am not opposed to that. What I am saying is that I and others should not be subsidising that choice. We should be putting the money, as the Labour Government did, into ensuring that the general population have access to good-quality NHS care and do not have to worry about the cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

I am sure that people across the country would be astonished to discover that the first priority of Back-Bench Tories on health spending is to give a tax concession to people who pay, on average, £2,000 a year towards health insurance, because most people over 65 are in no position to pay such a sum towards health insurance. Most people across the country, including many pensioners, and perhaps even those pensioners who have private health insurance, think that the first priority for spending should be to avoid some of the cuts that the Government are already introducing and to direct spending to the national health service.

[Mr Redwood]

I just want to correct the record, because our first priority was to have a wider range of drugs to treat cancer, as we thought that the previous system was too meanly constructed, and we were proud of the Government when they made that the No. 1 priority for extra spending.

[Frank Dobson]

But that decision has been and gone, and I do not think there was any opposition to it across the House, but we are now talking about the Bill. The Government now propose that the first priority should be to spend the best part of £200 million to give a subsidy to people who are already sufficiently well off that they can pay £2,000 on average towards their private health care costs. I do not think that that is a sensible priority for anyone concerned about health care. I hope that no Tory Members, or Lib Dem Members if they support this proposal, will parade outside their local hospitals saying, “Please don’t get rid of 200 nurses, or some of the doctors, or our ambulance and emergency service, and please don’t take away our maternity unit.” That will be because some of their colleagues thought that the first priority was to spend £200 million on people who are considerably better off than the average.

Government Members have said that the rich can afford to buy private health care and that most rich pensioners already have it. Some extreme marketeer right-wingers both here and in the United States think that health insurance should be abolished because, if people have to pay for health care costs out of their income or savings, they will be a source of pressure to bring down those costs, but Government Back Benchers have not reached that extreme marketisation approach yet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct that that is the case for the vast majority of people. Of course, care is often continued for highly paid executives, the group of people whom Conservative Members seek to help—as I have said, the Conservatives are the party of the very few, not the many. However, he is entirely right that the vast majority of US citizens lose their private health cover in that situation. That is why Opposition Members have worked so hard to resist the attempts of the Secretary of State and his Liberal cohorts to introduce privatisation by the back door.

I am conscious that the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) will wish to make his closing arguments prior to dividing the House. We look forward to seeing the strength of feeling that exists, and I urge Liberal Democrat Members to stand up for the health service and stand up to their Conservative allies.

[Mr Redwood]

I should like to make it absolutely clear that this matter is not my No. 1 priority, and I do not think it is the No. 1 priority of all Conservative Members. We were elected on a manifesto that said that we were going to increase spending on the NHS in the traditional way by several billion pounds a year, and that pledge is going to be honoured.

[Thomas Docherty]

No it’s not; you’ve broken it.

[Mr Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman should read the Red Book. It clearly shows substantial cash increases in spending on health every year over the lifetime of this Parliament.

[Thomas Docherty]

The reality is that the increase in spending is lower than the increase in inflation, so it is a real-terms cut.

[Mr Redwood]

We have kept the promise to have substantial increases in cash spending. It is now very important that we get the maximum for it. We are in danger of wandering too far from the new clause, but I point out that as we are about to enter a period of wage freezes, a substantial increase in cash funding will obviously buy more health care, because the main cost is wages. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. The Government’s clear priority was to expand cancer treatments and other drugs, and to ensure that we have more high-quality care. I welcome that very much.

The second thing to understand about the new clause is that it is not a help-the-rich new clause. Opposition Members should understand that the rich are not going to be attracted by an offset on 20% tax, because they are either non-doms paying very little tax or they are paying 50% tax. They are people who self-insure, so they are not going to take out insurance policies such as we are discussing. We are not dealing with the rich, because the rich have always been able to buy the health care that they want under any type of Government. That would not change as a result of the new clause.

We are talking about a specific group of people who are coming up to retirement. Some of them will have had the benefit of company scheme insurance, and some will not have had the benefit of insurance at all. At 65, they often have an important decision to take, because several things happen. First, they lose their company health insurance, if they were receiving it. Secondly, their insurance premiums go up a lot, because they are suddenly thought to be higher risk. Thirdly, they enter the age group when they will need a lot more health care than they did in their healthy, earning years when they were executives or whatever. We are talking about whether that group of people should be able to carry on their insurance, and whether such an incentive would make any difference.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House some indication of what proportion of the population he is talking about, and what sort of income scale they are on, including retirement income?

[Mr Redwood]

I will give as much precision as the Leader of the Opposition and say that they are the squeezed middle. They are exactly the people in whom the Opposition are meant to be interested but whom they clearly now wish to attack in the debate.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

rose—

[Mr Redwood]

I give way first to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright).

[Mr Wright]

Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us how much the measures in the new clause would cost?

[Mr Redwood]

I will take the other intervention before I respond.

[Mr Jones]

I can help the right hon. Gentleman and say that the proportion of people who would be helped is 5% of the population.

[Mr Redwood]

That may have been the case in the past, but what we are interested in is the new clause.

The answer to the hon. Member for Hartlepool is that no, I cannot tell him that. It is not my new clause and I have not researched the matter. I was about to say that I would be more likely to vote for it if a case could be made on the money involved. It seems to me that it would be a good-value purchase if the savings on health care that it generated for the NHS were considerable. We need to balance the two things—we need to know what the revenue loss would be, based on a sensible estimate of take-up, and what the savings to the NHS would be.

The Labour party has to accept that it is not a one-sided matter. The whole point of the scheme is that there would be cost savings to the NHS. That money going into the NHS could then be spent on other people and other treatment. The NHS may still have to do the really difficult things for the people involved, but there could still be an overall benefit both to them and to the NHS if the extra money coming through the private sector led to extra care.

The fundamental mistake that we have heard from the Opposition tonight in their approach to these issues—although it was not the mistake of many Labour Ministers—is the idea that the resources to be provided are finite, to be used either in the private sector or in the public sector. The whole idea, surely, is that we need more resources, more trained people, more treatments, more supplies and more medical activity, because people are living longer, they need more health treatments and the population is growing for a variety of reasons.

As some of my hon. Friends have said, the one big gap between Britain and our European partners, which are normally the example held out by the Labour party, is the amount of private sector money that goes into health in Britain. It is a considerably smaller proportion than in countries such as Germany or France or the Scandinavian countries. If Labour Members are interested in the squeezed middle, they would be well advised to consider any scheme that might help to increase or release private sector money in health in a way that creates more resources, more medically trained people, and more medical treatment.

[Oliver Heald]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that a more substantial private sector would help the NHS, because at times of great busyness in the NHS, it is to the private sector that the NHS looks to do the necessary operations? That happens right across the country, and it is one reason why it has been possible to bear down on waiting times.

[Mr Redwood]

That is exactly what successive Ministers and Secretaries of State for Health in the Labour Government concluded, with the honourable exception of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson). After him came the modernising Secretaries of State and Ministers who felt that they had to turn to the private sector to achieve better standards—in terms of offering people treatment in a timely way—and to expand the total capacity of the system.

[Frank Dobson]

My successors, to whom the right hon. Gentleman refers, sometimes make rather wild claims about the number of cataract operations that are carried out by the private sector. When Labour came to power, the NHS did 167,000 cataract operations a year, and in the last year for which figures are available it did 346,000. The private sector made the massive contribution of 16,000 in its best year.

[Mr Redwood]

The right hon. Gentleman may well be right. It is quite obvious that the NHS is the dominant health provider in our country—it has been for the many years since its foundation, and it will continue to be so under any schemes proposed by any governing party or parties in this House of Commons.

I wanted to concentrate on the cost and benefit of the proposals. I am an agnostic on this issue, which may come as a surprise to the House, because I am far from being a deficit denier, and I believe that we must weigh carefully any proposal for tax relief against other such proposals. In this case, I would be interested to know more about what the savings would be. There could be significant savings. If Ministers do not adopt the proposed scheme, they need to introduce others to promote more private health care of the right kind, because we will need a lot more of that to meet our targets and requirements, alongside the very large, and rightly favoured and supported, NHS.

Perhaps my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald), who have spoken so strongly for the new clauses, wish to move closer to the Liberal Democrat coalition partners. Perhaps they had ringing in their minds the words of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), who set out a comprehensive universal insurance scheme for health in the Orange Book. We will have to disappoint him today, because the proposal is modest, and it will not cover nearly as many people as he would like. Were he here, we could debate that with him, and perhaps he would see that caution and moderation is the hallmark of Conservative approaches to such things. This proposal might be the way to get started on the journey that he wished to make.

[Mr Iain Wright]

In terms of spending on health, does the right hon. Gentleman believe that we should move away from a policy of funding through general taxation and towards comprehensive medical insurance, which is the policy advocated by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws)?

[Mr Redwood]

No, I was just wondering whether my hon. Friends had that in mind, knowing how much they treasure the coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and knowing that such bold statements were made in the Orange Book by no less than a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who presumably knew the price of everything and the value of some things, and who would want to ensure value for money.

I hope that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench consider the wider issue that was rightly raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley. How do we get extra resources and money spent on health in a friendly and sensible way, on top of the very great and important NHS, which my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley, for Christchurch and for North East Hertfordshire rightly back? If not by their route, what route? May we please have some numbers? The proposal could be a good-value buy, but that depends very much on how much cost would be taken out of the NHS.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I have one or two things to say about this debate, and I was stirred into standing up by the previous speech, because either woolly-headed logic was being used by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), or he was making a deliberate statement to try to cover—

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

You know, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is amazing technology in this place. Members can sit in their offices and, if they wish, not watch the tennis but follow the debate in detail, and come down to the Chamber when they think it might be useful to add something. I recommend it to Members: turn off the tennis, turn on the Chamber.

The point I was making is that the logic used by the right hon. Member for Wokingham was possibly deliberately to convince the public that the proposal is an effort to add extra resources to the health services by encouraging people to put money into private health insurance. The logic, of course, is that such private health insurance is available to some people when they are in employment, but is denied them when they retire. If that is the kind of employer that people have, it is a shame that they are deluded into thinking that insurance is a substitute for taxation-based health services.

The right hon. Gentleman stated that resources are not finite, and that somehow this money would bring new resources rushing into the health service. Everyone who has studied the health service over the time I have been in elected politics, which is since 1977, knows what happens. The consultant and the surgeon choose whether to work in the private sector or in the public sector. Sometimes they choose to work in a mixture of those. I commend those who decide to work entirely in the public sector, because they give the best value to our constituents, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson) said when, in an intervention, he cited the number of operations for cataracts.

However, the reality is that only a limited number of people get to the top of the elitist profession that is the medical profession, particularly to consultant level, because we do not train enough people to do the work that is required in the health service.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that in countries that have a bigger private sector on top of a large public sector, there are more doctors and nurses in relation to the population, because there is more money?

[Michael Connarty]

The right hon. Gentleman leads me to my next point. He recommended that we look at the EU system. I am glad that in reply to an intervention from one of my hon. Friends he said that he objects to the idea of a comprehensive, insurance-based health service in this country. I, too, have looked at that on the continent and in EU countries, and I have seen that it does not work.

In fact, other EU countries do have a larger number of doctors—there are more doctors per head of population in most of them than in this country—but that is because of the elitist structure of the medical profession in this country. That structure keeps the numbers down and pays huge bonuses to people once they get to the higher gradings. Many of those people are the very same ones who moonlight in the private sector for additional personal financial gain.

The Economy

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ed Balls]

I think the question that people will be asking in the hon. Gentleman’s local newspaper is this: why does he oppose a tax cut that would provide £450 for every family this year, and would boost failing confidence?

The hon. Member for West Suffolk does not seem to have turned up. It is so disappointing that he is not here, as he was last time, because I had a very good contribution for him.

Let me now set aside the Chancellor’s wild and nonsensical political attempts to draw parallels between Britain and Greece, and make a serious point about what is happening in Greece and how it affects the United Kingdom. The issue now is not whether Britain does or does not contribute to a further EU financial package for Greece. Like the Chancellor—I think—I believe that that would be the wrong thing for our country to do. It seems to me that we have reached a point at which talk of more temporary liquidity austerity packages, and further tough talking, is no longer working.

EU Finance Ministers must face the fact that Greece needs economic growth to succeed. Otherwise, it will be stuck in a debt trap. It is now very hard to see how Greece can stay in the single currency without a change of strategy on fiscal austerity and a substantial restructuring. The fact is, however, that it is precisely because the UK is outside the eurozone—and thank goodness we are; I will take an intervention on that if any Member wishes to intervene—and because our banks are less exposed to Greek debts than those in Germany and France that Britain should be an honest broker in these discussions. We are in a position to present an objective argument for immediate and co-ordinated action to restore jobs and growth and start reducing the debt, along with a sustainable, long-term plan for its reduction. However, we can do that without being accused by the people of Greece that we are merely looking after our own interests.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ed Balls]

No.

What happened this week when there was the chance to show some leadership? Throughout the crisis, our Chancellor’s only concern has been to make short-term domestic political capital out of the crisis.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ed Balls]

No. I am making a serious point.

In every crisis since 1997—the Asian crisis, the dotcom crisis, the Russian crisis, and the global financial crisis of 2008—Britain was constantly at the centre of discussions attempting to establish a solution for the future.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ed Balls]

In one second.

For the first time in 14 years we have a Chancellor and a Prime Minister who are on the sidelines, silent, irrelevant and ignored. I believe that whatever the outcome of the present crisis—whatever happens in the eurozone and to Greece—people will say that we had a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was not there, who did not deliver, who was out of his depth, and who could not contribute to the long-term reforms that were needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

rose—

[Ed Balls]

Now I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Redwood]

The right hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. The United Kingdom can make an important contribution to the debate, but it obviously should not lend money directly to Greece. Is he saying that he thinks the only way out for Greece now is a rescheduling of its debt and agreement on the fact that there must be a change of pattern to secure the necessary growth and enable the economy to accelerate?

[Ed Balls]

In a moment I will deal with the parallel with the United Kingdom. Let me say first, however, that the lesson of history shows that it is not possible to deal with a solvency crisis by providing liquidity package after liquidity package, because that does not reach the heart of the issue. On the contrary, it makes the position worse and worse. At some point people will have to face up to that. Package after package has been agreed, but that has not worked. The debt has not gone down; it has gone up.

History teaches us that three things are necessary to the credibility of a plan, whether it involves monetary policy or fiscal policy. First, the plan must be for the medium term; secondly, there must be political support for it; and thirdly, it must work. If it does not work, that will eventually rebound on political support, as we have seen in Greece in recent weeks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Osborne]

Of course there are economists, including Lord Skidelsky, who have made their views clear, but there are just as many—indeed, more—economists on the other side of the argument. The economic institutions that govern our world—the IMF, the OECD, and the European Commission, which does not govern our world, but produced a recent report on the British economy—all made the same point. We can set ourselves completely against world opinion, as the shadow Chancellor has done, because he cannot admit that the country had huge problems coming up to the financial crisis. He cannot do that or he would put himself centre stage. That is what this is all about, but the world has moved on and the Labour party has not yet moved on with it.

[Mr Redwood]

The Red Book says that current public spending will rise 3.8% this year in cash terms and it is running a little higher than that at present. Given that there is to be a public sector pay freeze, is it the intention that there should be a real increase in public spending this year? Does that not put the debate into some kind of context?

[Mr Osborne]

My right hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that although we have had to take very difficult decisions—everybody understands and sees that—we are not facing the sort of catastrophic scenario painted by the Opposition. The shadow Chancellor talked about Greece perhaps having to default and leave the euro, and as it is not in primary balance and it has a big budget deficit, that would lead to even more draconian cuts. The truth is that if we had not put in place a credible, measured, staggered plan to reduce the budget deficit, we would have been forced by the international markets into making much deeper cuts.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 21st June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend draws attention to the completely ludicrous policy put forward by the shadow Chancellor last week—it was mentioned just on that Thursday, and has not been repeated by any Labour politician since—for a £13 billion unfunded tax change, or £51 billion over the Parliament. The policy is totally incredible, and was rejected by every serious economic commentator on the day. It just shows how far those on the shadow Front Bench have to go to make good for the mistakes that they made in office.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given the large amount of state bank debt still on the balance sheet, will my right hon. Friend consider a scheme to make an early transfer of shares in the state-owned banks to taxpayers for free, on condition that, as and when people sell, they send money back to the Treasury to represent the Treasury cost of those shares?

[Mr Osborne]

I am always happy to discuss the ideas of my right hon. Friend or other Members on how we dispose of those bank shares. The House will know that we announced last week that we are putting Northern Rock up for sale—the good bank in Northern Rock, of course; the state will hold on to the bad bank for many years to come. We want to exit from our shareholdings in RBS and Lloyds in due course, but we do not judge now to be the right time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the increased number of repossessions. We want to see a strong and stable housing market. The Government have taken action to support those who wish to stay in their homes through an extension of the scheme for mortgage interest support. We are continuing to make sure that advice is available to people who are facing difficulties in meeting their mortgage payments. The important thing, however, is to keep interest rates as low as possible for as long as possible so that families are not faced with an increase in their mortgage payments.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given the lack of growth in money and credit, is there anything else that the Government can do to promote the growth in the economy that is so crucial to their plans?

[Mr George Osborne]

As my right hon. Friend will know, the supply-side reforms that were set out in the growth review, including the reduction in corporate tax rates, are key. At the same time, as banks’ balance sheets inevitably contract after the credit crunch and after the dramatic increase in the size of balance sheets over recent years, we need to ensure that we try to protect small and medium-sized businesses from the effects of that. That is why we concluded the Merlin deal with the banks.

Eurozone (Contingency Plans)

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 20th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

May I just deal with the right hon. Gentleman’s factual questions? The figures about UK banks’ exposure to Greek sovereign debt were provided by the Bank of England, based on results at the end of quarter one this year.

On the right hon. Gentleman’s second question, I seem to remember that he was a member of a Government who seemed committed to taking this country into the euro. I do not know whether we have seen a damascene or deathbed conversion from the Labour party. I think it was right for this country to stay out of the euro, and that is the policy of this Government. We have a strong interest, though, in the continued stability of the eurozone, as it is our major trading partner. Continued instability in the eurozone could be a factor in holding back the recovery of the British economy.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given that Greece needs a work-out rather than another bail-out, will the British Government go to the International Monetary Fund and the EU and say the following? First, a second bail-out would mean sending good money after bad and should not be done; secondly, we need an urgent conference of all the interested parties to reschedule and re-profile Greek debt in an orderly way to avoid huge systemic damage, while accepting that the problem has already occurred. Greece went bankrupt more than a year ago, but the Ministers of certain countries cannot believe it and are wasting taxpayers’ money on trying to pretend that it has not happened.

Eurozone Financial Assistance

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Government amendment—they have not tabled it in their own name, but that is what it is, to a great extent—reflects badly on the integrity of the coalition. It has nothing whatever to do with the national interest. It also says a great deal about a commitment to Liberal Democrat ideology, and it is primarily about numbers. The Liberal Democrats, and certain elements in the Conservative party at a very high level, are quite prepared to allow further European integration. There are alternatives that would allow us to renegotiate the treaties and/or to say no, but they are simply not doing so.

Indeed, only a few days ago, the Prime Minister made it abundantly clear that the object of the coalition was to stabilise the economy. We understand that. The problem is that this is about numbers, not about principles or policy. There are many people in the Conservative party, outside and inside the House, who know that the arguments we are seeking to address in a reasonable fashion are in the interests of the country. There is no question about that; the press outside believe it as well. The bottom line is that those of us who have relentlessly pursued the issue of the eurozone bail-out and have tabled many questions have invariably received what could reasonably be described as somewhat evasive answers.

Why should the British taxpayer or British hospitals and schools in our constituencies in any way underwrite what goes on in Portugal, or indeed any other country in the eurozone, particularly in times of austerity? It is nothing to do with the question, as suggested on a number of occasions, of qualified majority voting. This is completely contrary to the assertion made in reply to me today by the Financial Secretary. Article 122 is not compatible with the treaty and cannot possibly be used to support the European financial stability mechanism. Indeed, in their acquiescence, as shown in the amendment, the Government accept that the position is legally unsound. By saying that, they completely undermine their position. The Government know it and everyone knows it: it is not compatible with the treaty, and the Minister is wrong.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful legal point. Does he agree that what these states in trouble need is a work-out, not a bail-out? We do not give alcoholics more drink; we cure the alcoholism. We should not give the over-borrower more borrowing.

[Mr Cash]

I could not agree more, and a course of Alcoholics Anonymous would not be out of place.

It is not just the European Scrutiny Committee that said the position was legally unsound or unlawful. Madame Lagarde herself, the prospective head of the IMF, said on this issue on 17 December:

“We violated all the rules because we wanted to close ranks and really rescue the eurozone.”

This is a stitch-up of the British people to maintain the so-called solidarity for further integration of a failing European project. That is what lies at the heart of the matter.

Why are people protesting and rioting all over Europe —in Madrid, Greece, Italy and the list is growing? What is not growing is the European economy and the reason is that the sort of policies needed—here and in all the other countries—to engender growth to deal with the deficit that the Government rightly say we have to address are impossible to achieve without generating the growth that is needed by repealing legislative burdens and generating policies that the integrationists in Europe simply refuse to allow. I would go further and say that the coalition in this country cannot achieve growth simply because the Liberal Democrats, as part of the coalition, have silenced the Prime Minister’s promise to repatriate burdens on business. It is called 56 votes and the keys to No. 10.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), because he talked about something that should be discussed more in this place: the plight of the people who are suffering problems because of their own Government’s mismanagement. My Eurosceptic colleagues on the Labour Benches are still against the common market—they are not really against the European Union as such—whereas the Eurosceptics on the Government Benches are, honourably, against the EU as a project. As they know, the problem I have with this whole debate is that all these manifestations have nothing to do with our being in the eurozone; they are to do with the failure of Governments to use the money that they had available, their own economic powers and the money made available to them by the EU in their period of transition into the EU to do the right things and invest correctly in the skills of their people and in the supply side of their economy, rather than spending the money on large economic projects.

For example, when we go on a cheap holiday to Portugal we can drive on excellent motorways directly from the airport to the place where we will lie in the sun, and the hotels and large boulevards will have been paid for by EU money. However, the young people of that country fail to get a decent education, proper skills and university places. The reality of these countries is that they have under-invested in their own people. That criticism cannot be levelled at the UK.

The eurozone offers these countries a way out of their dilemma that, as a socialist, I do not particularly find attractive; they will be asked to cut further their budgets, which should be invested in their social infrastructure and the supply side of their economy. That will cause them great harm, but that offer will be made to them by the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and so on because it is the capitalist model. That model says, “When you are in trouble, slash your budgets in the public sector.” Now, where have I heard that before? I have heard it from those on the Government Front Bench and from every Government Back Bencher. They have been told that every time they get up they should use the mantra about how they have to slash and burn the economy of this country—thus denying the young people of this country the chance to look for a better future—because of the problem of debt.

That situation will be the consequence for Greece, Portugal and Ireland. It is what is happening in Ireland, and the young people in Spain are worried that it will happen to them. That country is a good example of a place where major infrastructure projects have been financed by the EU and the supply side of the economy has been run down. I have met many young people in Spain who say, “It was easy to leave school at 16 and get a job building houses, but nobody can afford to buy them now. It was good money, the sun was shining and everything was going to be fine.” Suddenly, these people find that they have no skills, no jobs and no future.

[Mr Redwood]

rose—

[Michael Connarty]

I will give way in a moment.

Everything I am discussing is the consequence of the things that the Governments of these countries did; this was not about the EU being in existence and not about their being members of the eurozone. These things were done by those Governments. The offer is that the IMF, the World Bank and the eurozone countries, mainly, will bail out those countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Connarty]

I am about to give way to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood). A small part of the bail-out will be a fund, to which we have signed up, that will give a loan to those countries to help them to get over this unattractive prospect of having to face down their own people and cut their own services because of the lack of good Government management, so that they can be bailed out.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman not see that these countries are locked into a currency at a rate that makes them completely uncompetitive, which is why they have mass unemployment and why lending them money does not get them out of the mess?

[Michael Connarty]

I do not see that. What the right hon. Gentleman says may be a good indicator of where this debate is coming from. This is not about the European mechanism; this is about wanting to destroy the euro, to see it bust and to see it fail. If that is what it is about, people should stand up and say so; they should not lie to the people of the UK or mislead them by saying that it is about something else. People should be told the truth. I know that some Labour Members would certainly like to see the European monetary project and the euro completely collapse. If that is the agenda of Members on the Government Benches, they should say so.

The prospect I was describing is not one that I find attractive. In the modern world economy we clearly need to have a large trade bloc, probably united in some way around a monetary discipline, that faces down the problems coming from the United States of America, which is in the most unbelievable debt to the rest of the world. That country is run on the basis of its economy always being indebted to other countries. What will come from China and from Africa? That is part of this whole issue, and I hope that one day we will have the courage to move into that area, but what we are talking about is a very small loan of £4 billion, which will come back to the people of this country eventually when these countries are resettled in a new economic environment.

We hear hon. Members go on and on as if they are doing something wonderful in defending the UK, but they are not. We are talking about “beggar your neighbour” politics here and I am not prepared to vote for that. I applaud the Government for being honest and sincere about the fact that this European project either collapses or it is supported by all of us in different ways. I believe that the interest of the people of the UK lies in maintaining the eurozone and the euro, and helping countries when they fall into indebtedness. I hope that the Government will persuade hon. Members to reject the proposals before them.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Mark Hoban)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) on securing the debate. I will start by setting out our view, which is that responsibility for sorting out the problems of the euro area ultimately rests with euro area Governments. We are not members of the euro area, so it is not our responsibility to deal with all its problems. However, no one should be under any misapprehension about the importance of the euro area to the UK economy.

A strong euro area means a growing market for our goods and services. A weak euro area puts at risk jobs and businesses in our constituencies, as my hon. Friends the Members for Orpington (Joseph Johnson) and for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) noted in their contributions. More than 40% of UK exports are to the euro area, and we know, as has been repeated ad nauseam, that we export more goods and services to Ireland than we send to Brazil, Russia, India and China combined. We have a clear interest in ensuring that the problems in the euro area are resolved and that the right mechanisms are in place to do so, but it is not our responsibility to sort them out and it is right, as the amendment makes clear, for us to find a permanent solution that does not require us to contribute to this.

[Mr Redwood]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

I beg to move,

That this House considers that the Draft Directive to introduce a Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (European Union Document No. 7263/11) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity, for the reasons set out in chapter 2 of the Twenty-seventh Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 428-xxv); and, in accordance with Article 6 of the Protocol on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the presidents of the European institutions.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to discuss this European Commission proposal, which, as the House is aware, is potentially significant. I will highlight a few general points before turning to the specific legal and treaty issues which the European Scrutiny Committee has raised in its report and which are the subject of the motion.

I want to start by reiterating the Government’s commitment to ensuring that there is no further transfer of sovereignty or powers to the EU over the course of the Parliament. I also stress that the Government have made it clear that we will not agree to a proposal that might threaten or limit the UK’s ability to shape its own tax policy. I know that the motion focuses on whether the proposal complies with subsidiarity and proportionality, which are both important questions that I will address in turn.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

This is extremely good news from the Minister. Will she confirm that the UK will not consent to the so-called six-pack measures on economic governance, of which at least three clearly apply to non-euro members and represent a transfer of powers?

[Justine Greening]

As my right hon. Friend will be aware, important discussions on economic governance are under way and are being resolved. I assure him that we have no intention, as I have said, of seeing any further powers transferred to Brussels. We keep a watching brief on not only the topic that we are discussing, but across the board. I am sure he is aware of a number of areas in which we are expressing concerns to the Commission, because we are concerned that further powers may be taken by Brussels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

Our assessment is that it is possible to make the case that because article 115 of the TFEU relates to the effective functioning of the single market, it is relevant to consider whether the proposal would affect the single market. There is also the question whether there is any problem that needs to be addressed. We do not accept that there is, but if there were, we would have to ask whether the proposal was the right solution. That is what I mean when I talk about proportionality. We must also consider subsidiarity, and we do not believe that the two can simply be separated, because they go hand in hand.

For the Government to be reassured that the proposal complies with the fundamental principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, we would require far stronger justification from the Commission. We would need evidence that the existence of 27 different tax systems is a significant barrier to the functioning of the single market—we do not believe it is, or that the evidence is there to support such a conclusion—and directly results in all the specific tax obstacles that the proposal claims to address. We would also need evidence that the proposal is the only, or the best, way to address those tax obstacles. We will continue to raise those points with the Commission during our discussions, and we will continue to engage proactively and constructively with other member states on the important issues of policy substance, including those highlighted in the European Scrutiny Committee’s report.

As I have said, we are not the only member state that has raised significant concerns about the proposal, and we will continue to talk to others about their concerns and ours.

[Mr Redwood]

Is it not rather easier than that? We have always been assured by previous Ministers of the Crown that we have an absolute veto on tax matters, so do we not just have to say to the EU, “We have a veto, and the answer is no”?

[Justine Greening]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we can say no for ourselves, but the problem, as he is aware, is that under the treaty, a smaller group of nine or more member states—

[Mr Redwood]

Fine.

[Justine Greening]

My right hon. Friend says that that is fine, but there is a danger for our country that even that would have an impact on the tax planning that we could undertake with corporations as member states choose whether to opt in or out. We want to ensure that we are in those discussions at this earlier stage, before we get to that part of any future process. We do not know whether we will get to that stage—many member states might share our concerns—but we absolutely need to be in there now, making our case, because we do not want to end up with a smaller group of member states going down that route, which could, depending on their decisions on tax loopholes and avoidance, which are complex, lead to negative unforeseen consequences for the UK tax system’s competitiveness, which might happen even if the UK were outside any possible future proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

I am very tempted by the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to do so. As I said, we have not changed our policy from when we were in office, and the Government have decided to pick that up. We do not wish to see the harmonisation of corporation tax rates; nor do we believe that this CCCTB proposal is justified, although there are legitimate cross-border issues that we need to discuss. For example, the CBI has raised the important issue of how businesses operate and the compliance costs that companies working on a cross-border basis can sometimes incur. It is legitimate to listen to those points, although there may be other, non-EU ways of addressing them. For example, we could make bilateral, country-to-country arrangements—through some of the double taxation treaties, and so on—to deal with those issues. Indeed, I would like the Minister to address the issue of bilateral discussions, which I understand the Treasury says in the reasoned opinion it might wish to pursue. It would be very helpful indeed if she could tell the House what negotiations the Government have already entered into along those lines.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the shadow Minister, like me, find it democratically distasteful that a 102-page draft law governing the whole of our corporation tax regime, along with supporting papers amounting to 298 pages, should get only one and a half hours of debate, and that this is all the scrutiny that we are allowed?

[Chris Leslie]

Yes, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that. We need to begin to readdress entirely the accountability deficit. I know that this Parliament already tries valiantly to address it—in Scrutiny Committees and elsewhere—but this is a debate about serious proposals. The Treasury is often an intermediary these days when it comes to new regulations and policy changes. It is important that we should think about the design of our Government and our Parliament in tackling proposals as they come along.

As I said, I am interested in the Government’s line. We will not take issue with them on this proposal this evening, but we want to watch where they go with it. All I am asking of the Minister is whether coalition policy is taking into account the Liberal Democrat official line.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Tonight’s debate should be a vital one because, after all, it is about sovereignty; it is about power. The might of this House of Commons in its great years was based on one very simple proposition: that only a vote of the House of Commons could impose or remove a tax on the British people. It was that power which our predecessors fought for and achieved, and it was that power which was crucial to grant the supply to the Government, who could then choose how to spend it, on the advice and with the votes of the House of Commons.

We have been assured and reassured by countless Ministers of the Crown since we joined the European Economic Community in the 1970s that taxation was always a matter for unanimity; that we would always have a veto over any tax matter; and that there was no question of the European Union interfering and choosing taxes for us or running our tax system. Under the previous Labour Government, tax was said to be a defensible red line, which they always told us they had always protected. Under previous Conservative Governments, Ministers could rightly then say that it was always a matter entirely for the jurisdiction and decision of this House of Commons.

Yet tonight, in this small and short debate, we are presented with a 102-page draft law which is a comprehensive new corporation tax system for the European Union, including the United Kingdom. Worse still, we have been warned in a friendly way by the Minister that if this country disagrees with it, a group of countries may go ahead under some other procedure and create it anyway, and they will then exert extraterritorial jurisdiction over the UK because they will try to tempt our companies away from our system to their system. As my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) has just said, tax advisers and accountants will be able to play all sorts of games under this complicated system so that companies that have some activities in Britain could be tempted into the European Union opt-in system. That would mean that the British Treasury and British Ministers would no longer have jurisdiction over them; we would get back only what the sharing formula allowed, which the European Union would be in charge of.

I assume that it is because the Minister is worried about that eventuality that she has not come here with a straightforward proposal just to veto the whole thing. My advice to the Government is that this should be the issue we fight over. This proposal is so outrageous, it is such a comprehensive violation of subsidiarity, as they call it, and it is such a U-turn from the proposition that a member state has control over its own tax affairs that surely we should veto it. If we vetoed it and other countries still wanted to go ahead as a lesser group than the European Union, we should follow things through and say that it therefore does not apply to the United Kingdom and we will not operate it in respect of companies that are properly domiciled here and should be taxed here under our rules. We should set the rules for organisations and companies undertaking activity in Britain, making money in Britain and employing people in Britain. If we cannot do that, what is the point of this House of Commons? I think the Minister is in a stronger position than perhaps her officials and advisers have suggested.

We have heard, I think rightly, from my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) that the legal base is not correct. In order to justify all the statements that this is a matter for unanimity, it must come under that measure in the treaty that states that other proposals can be produced but that they require the unanimous consent of all member states. It must come under a unanimous base. Once it is a matter to be decided under a unanimous base, we can then save the European Union a lot of time, trouble and money because we can simply say that we do not wish to have a collective corporation tax system and that Britain is going to use her veto. For once, surely, the United Kingdom could have some influence over the agenda of the European Union and we could show that we mean it when we say that taxation is for national decision—that it is a matter for subsidiarity, in the EU’s language, or a matter of sovereignty, in my language.

I would like to ask my ministerial friend what the point was of this House solemnly legislating to maintain, uphold or reaffirm the sovereignty of the British Parliament if we cannot even choose our own corporation tax regime. What is the point of our going along with the negotiations to try to ameliorate, improve or abate the severity of this draft law if we are doing so in the spirit that we will end up with a law of sorts anyway? We will then hear from the Minister that instead of it being something that we have vetoed, it is something we have taken the worst out to make it a bit more tolerable so that we can go along with it. It will not be necessary for the other member states who want the measure to use a special procedure to get it, and there will be no need for us to say to them that we refuse to go along with it or comply with it.

[Mr Cash]

Does my right hon. Friend recall the words of Chancellor Kohl, who, only 10 or 15 years ago, made it clear that, on the question of the speed of the convey, which is what this is all about, he would want the front of the convey to go ahead, led by Germany, and for the other Member states to be left in such a parlous condition that they would eventually, in his words, have to catch up?

[Mr Redwood]

My hon. Friend is quite right. That also explains why the European Union is so keen to try to get the Irish rate up, because if it is to have a common system such as this, it would not want a weak link. The EU would see a weak link as a state that dared to set a more realistic and lower rate in order to attract business.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

As ever, my right hon. Friend makes his points with incredible force. Does he agree if the European Union follows the policies of bail-outs and political interference with business all the time, we will keep seeing measures like this one again and again until we head towards a single centralised economic system of government?

[Mr Redwood]

My hon. Friend is right. The EU believes that imposing more complex and higher taxes is the answer to the deficit problem, whereas the answer to the deficit problem is growth, more business, more activity and more jobs. Everything the EU does by way of higher tax rates, more regulation, more interference and more layers of government prevents that from happening. That is the Greek tragedy that we are witnessing as we debate today.

The latest figures on the Greek Government website imply that the Greek deficit got a lot bigger in the first part of this year because tax revenues plummeted, because the economy is in worse recession, and because spending has gone up, both because they are not controlling it and because spending goes up in a recession. That is the tragedy of the European model—of the bail-out model and of “extend and pretend”, whereby we extend the credit and pretend it will be all right. It is not going to be all right and that approach is causing disaster, unemployment and tragedy.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned several tragedies and I note with some interest that the Treasury team includes this Minister, the Economic Secretary, whose views on Europe are well known, the Chancellor, whose views are very well known, and the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), whose views are also very well known. Perhaps the real tragedy is that the Liberal Democrats in the Treasury team, who are not even here tonight, have forced this policy on the Government.

[Mr Redwood]

I am not sure I believe that. We have heard from the Minister that they are a happy and united team and that she is proud of the work she has brought to us. I am saying that I would like her to improve the work and to go back and make that happy team one that can perhaps make us happier. The simple answer is veto. She should say, “No, this cannot work. It is a dreadful constitutional intrusion on a country that desperately needs its own economic recovery to accelerate, that needs lower tax rates and greater tax simplification and that needs to promote economic growth.” My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is beginning to do that, but I think more measures are needed to secure the deal and make sure it works.

I am quite sure that this huge deal—the 102-page draft law—is not the way forward. My hon. Friend the Minister says that there is no proposal, but I regard a 102-page draft law as a very serious proposal. Experience has taught me never to underestimate the power and persuasion of the European Union when it wants to do something. I think that it is now on a great push to establish all the central powers it needs for the economic governance of a single-economy, single-country model, and that this is part of it along with the economic six-pack. My strong advice to my hon. Friend is that Britain can do better, Britain needs to say no and Britain needs to exempt herself from all this, as we are entitled to do, so that we keep a sovereign Parliament and a growing economy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I call Jacob Rees-Mogg.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

I am delighted if a case can be made under subsidiarity, but surely there is a much simpler case: taxation of companies and incomes was never part of the deal for the powers of the European Union. What it is trying to do is quite illegal, and all we need to do is to say so.

[Mr Jenkin]

But that was always the danger with article 5 and the subsidiarity clause. There are some very general objectives set out in the treaties, and subsidiarity is one of those catch-all arrangements that can justify stretching the meaning of other articles, as we have already seen.

How does the European Union justify the bail-out mechanism that the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer approved under article 122 of the Lisbon treaty, which was designed for natural disasters? How can a crisis in the euro possibly be classified as a natural disaster? The mechanism has, however, been allowed to go through by default.

The arrangement before us is another that will go through by default if we do not challenge it. Indeed, article 26 of the draft directive, the penultimate paragraph of the preamble, states:

“The objective of this Directive cannot be sufficiently achieved through individual action undertaken by the Member States because of the lack of coordination among national tax systems.”

It goes on to justify the objective as being

“in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity”—

and in its own terms that is very difficult to argue with.

I appreciate the European Scrutiny Committee’s points about the direct legal base, but the European Union is going for an indirect legal base. That demonstrates that subsidiarity was always a deceit. It was always something that could be a centralising, as opposed to a decentralising, concept, and if we rest our case against the proposal purely on the principle of subsidiarity we will allow the EU, rather than what we want ourselves, to determine what is imposed upon this country. If we rest our case against this proposal purely on the principle of subsidiarity, we are allowing the European Union to decide what shall be imposed on this country rather than deciding what we want for ourselves.