Exiting the European Union (Sanctions)

Debate between Helen Goodman and John Redwood

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

I am interested to hear the Minister’s response, because if the Government wish to tighten the sanctions regime, he and the Foreign Office will have the opportunity to do so, and they might well succeed in that. However, what is not acceptable is pursuing a tighter policy without a clear legal base; I suggest that that would not do much for our reputation.

I want to pick up on the point that was made about Iran by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood). EU sanctions were introduced in the case of Iran in 2011, in response to violent crackdowns against street protests. In view of the continued serious human rights abuses in Iran—notably, extensive use of the death penalty, including for juveniles; torture; the repression of women and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender activists; and the detention of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe three years ago and the denial to her of access to medical treatment—we believe that these sanctions are justified. They cover in particular goods and technology used for repression, and we believe that that is right.

However, we believe that the American decision to lift the trade sanctions against Iran, which was taken as part of the international community’s joint comprehensive plan of action—JCPOA—nuclear deal, was also right. Sanctions have been an effective tool and they will continue to be effective if we impose them when things go badly and lift them when things go better. The Trump Administration’s decision to reimpose those trade sanctions and to withdraw from the JCPOA is mistaken. The JCPOA does not cover ballistic missiles or regional aggression—the arguments the Trump Administration put forward for reimposing sanctions. The decision further destabilises the region. That is a problem in foreign policy terms—it is unhelpful.

I would also be interested to know what the Government have done about the impact on European and British businesses and banks. Our businesses and banks are in an extremely difficult situation, whereby trade and investment under European law is completely legal, but under American law is completely illegal. There is an extraterritoriality effect of American law. I therefore have two questions for the Minister. First, will he hold to the current position in a post-Brexit scenario and not shift to the American position? Secondly, what has been, is and will be Government action to support British businesses and banks that wish to trade with and invest in Iran?

Finally, I come to Guinea-Bissau. The European Union imposed sanctions, which cover 20 individuals, in 2012 following an attempted coup. Guinea-Bissau is an extremely poor country with a lot of cocaine trafficked through it. There were some elections in March, and I ask the Minister what the Government are doing to improve governance in Guinea-Bissau. What are they doing to reduce drug trafficking via Guinea-Bissau? Does the Minister anticipate the UN Security Council changing its posture on sanctions?

[John Redwood]

The hon. Lady has made a powerful case about the things we are trying to put right in the countries we are discussing through sanctions, but it is worrying that they have been in place for a long time and not a lot of favourable change has occurred. Does she see any way of strengthening what we do once we have our own policy? We all share the aim of trying to improve Venezuela and Iran.

[Helen Goodman]

That was going to be my concluding point.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Helen Goodman and John Redwood

3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 3rd sitting: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Wednesday 8th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. Norway was part of the Nordic free movement area with Sweden, Finland and Denmark way before the European Union was even invented.

[John Redwood]

Norway is now part of a freedom of movement area far bigger than that, and that was part of its deal. It also has to pay in a lot of money that British voters clearly do not wish to pay, so why would we want to do that?

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Helen Goodman and John Redwood

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

I agree with that.

People are trying to make these negotiations far more complicated and longwinded than they need be. Because of the Prime Minister’s admirable clarity in her 12 points, we do not need to negotiate borders, money, taking back control, sorting out our own laws, getting rid of ECJ jurisdiction and so on. Those are matters of Government policy mandated by the British people—they are things we will just do. We will be negotiating just two things. First, will we have a bill to pay when we leave? My answer is simply: no, of course not. There is no legal power in the treaties to charge Britain any bill, and there is no legal power for any Minister to make an ex gratia payment to the EU over and above the legal payments in our contributions up to the date of our exit.

Secondly, the Government need, primarily, to sort out our future trading relationship with the EU. We will make the generous offer of carrying on as we are at the moment and registering it as a free trade agreement. If the EU does not like that, “most favoured nation” terms under WTO rules will be fine. That is how we trade with the rest of the world—very successfully and at a profit.

Members should relax and understand that things can be much easier. There will be no economic damage. The Government have taken an admirable position and made wonderful concessions to the other side, so I hope that those on the other side will accept them gratefully and gracefully, in the knowledge that they have had an impact on this debate.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clauses 28, 54 and 99, standing in my name and those of other right hon. and hon. Members. New clause 28 deals with the sequencing of votes on the final terms—the issue on which we have had a concession this afternoon from the Minister; new clause 54 is about how to secure extra time if we need it in our negotiations with the EU; and new clause 99 embeds parliamentary sovereignty in the process.

I am pleased to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood), but I am disappointed that he has not come clean to the Committee on the fact that he has identified an alternative process he hopes to use to secure the kind of Brexit he wants. He did not refer to another blog he wrote recently, in which he said:

“Being in the EU is a bit like being a student in a College. All the time you belong to the College you have to pay fees... When you depart you have no further financial obligations”.

This is a somewhat outmoded view of the way student finances work, but putting that to one side, he evidently has not read the excellent paper by Alex Barker of the Financial Times pointing out that the obligations on us will fall into three categories: legally binding budget commitments; pension promises to EU officials; and contingent liabilities, which indeed are arguable.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I do not think that the threat of the cliff edge is a positive in these negotiations. I note that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has described this as a second-best option and that the White Paper also says that crashing out is a second-best option. Actually, I think it is the worst option, and new clause 99 levels the playing field so that as well as having the vote on the terms of withdrawal and the money, this House will be able to have detailed scrutiny of the future relationship.

I have consulted my constituents on the kind of Brexit they want: they do not want the cliff-edge option, and there are all sorts of things about Europe that they like, even though the majority voted to leave. They like the customs union; they like the social chapter; they like co-operation and collaboration; and they particularly like the European arrest warrant.

[John Redwood]

The hon. Lady says that she would like collaboration to support the Government’s negotiations. Does she think that in a negotiating situation it is a good idea to say, “We think we owe you lot some money; tell us how much?”; or does she think it would be better to say, “I do not think that we owe you anything”?

[Helen Goodman]

In my experience of negotiation, one of the most important things is to understand what the people on the other side of the table think, and I believe that that is fundamental to our success in this negotiation. It is not to say that we are going to give the people on the other side of the table everything they want, but we need to be willing to listen to what they want as the negotiation proceeds.

Parliamentary Scrutiny of Leaving the EU

Debate between Helen Goodman and John Redwood

Wednesday 12th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

Indeed. This is not a prediction, because I know that a lot of people have lots of good and bad reasons to want to delay and make this more complicated, but it would be quite possible to negotiate the trade issue very quickly.

We have two models available. My preferred model would be to carry on trading tariff free without new barriers, as we are at the moment. That is the most sensible model to adopt, and I think it makes even more sense for our partners, who are much more successful at selling to us than we are to them. I have not yet heard them say that they want to impose barriers. Then there is the WTO most-favoured-nation model, which would also be fine. If one wishes to have a successful, quick and strong negotiation, one should not want anything. We do not want anything from our former partners. We want them to get on and develop their political union in the way that they want, in which we have been impeding them, and we want to be free to run our own affairs in an orderly and friendly way.

We want to have even more trade with our European partners. We want more investment agreements, more research collaborations, more student exchanges and more of all the other good things we have. Those things are not at risk, and there will be an enormous amount of good will from a more united United Kingdom. [Interruption.] Opposition Members want to split us up by saying that everything has to go wrong. If they want us to negotiate successfully, they should show confidence and optimism—let us show that we can do this and be good friends with our European partners.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: we have a mutual interest with other European countries in continuing research projects and university collaborations. However, those things are part of the EU budget, so if we are going to do them, he will have to get off his high horse about not making any contributions to the EU budget.

[John Redwood]

We will behave like all other independent countries of the EU and have lots of collaborations with them. We will have agreements on those collaborations as the need arises. The important thing is that we will have taken back control.

I urge the Labour party to understand that I and people like me are passionately in favour of parliamentary democracy. That is why we waged the long campaign that we had. I have every confidence that Parliament will rise to this occasion. Today is a good example of that. The Opposition had time and allotted it to this crucial subject. They could have tabled a motion about the position they would like us to strike in the negotiations, but they are not yet ready to do so. I understand that, but it was in their power to do so. They could have tabled a motion to try to veto an article 50 letter, had they wanted to, but they were very wise not to do so because many of their constituents would have seen it as an attempt to thwart the will of the people in the vote. There is nothing stopping this great Parliament doing those things.

I am pleased that the Secretary of State has already made two statements and given evidence to two Select Committee investigations. He was here in person today to answer the Opposition debate. We do not always get the courtesy of having the Secretary of State before us in an Opposition day debate. That augurs well for there being more scrutiny.

I am pleased that the main way we will leave the European Union is by repealing the European Communities Act 1972, because that means that the central process will be a long constitutional Bill—not long in length or wordage, I hope, but in terms of proceedings, as I am sure SNP Members will want to cavil over every “and” and comma, and they have every right to do so, up to a point. Parliament will consider that legislation and vote accordingly. That is exactly as it should be. It will be a great celebration of our parliamentary democracy, which the majority voted to strengthen, that we do it by parliamentary means.

The right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband), the former leader of the Labour party, correctly said that all the European law will at that point become British law—that is the irony of it—but we will do that for the purposes of continuity. Thereafter, we in this House will be able to judge whether it is wise or necessary to repeal or amend any part of that legislation. If it would have a direct bearing on our trade with the European Union, it would not be a good idea to do that without knowing that the EU was happy or that it would not react unreasonably. For example, when selling into a market, one needs to meet the product requirements, and things like product standards will be part of that continuation of the legislation.

The only thing about the single market that is really worthwhile—it is mainly very bureaucratic, expensive and pretty anti-enterprise—is that it provides common product specifications and standards, so that if a washing machine is saleable in France, it is also saleable in Greece. The great news is that when we are out of the EU, that will still be true. It is an advantage for an American exporter into the EU, just as it is for a UK exporter into the EU. When we are in a similar position to America—a friendly independent country trading with the EU from the outside—we will get the full benefit of that.

Let us bring the country together. Let us show that we can be more prosperous and more successful. Let us show that our trade is not at risk. Let us be confident in our negotiation. Let us not use this place to make all manner of problems that will give those who want to wreck our negotiation good comfort, support or extra research. Let us show how everything we do can create more jobs, more trade and more investment.

Finance Bill

Debate between Helen Goodman and John Redwood

Tuesday 8th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

: I remind the Committee that I advise an industrial and an investment company and the details are set out in the register.

I found it interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley)speak from the Opposition Front Bench on this important matter. As someone who thinks that taxes are best kept low and that we need to do all we can to maximise the spending power of those we represent, I had a lot of sympathy with much of what she was saying. Of course, there will be people who do not want to pay an increased insurance tax—who does? In particular, some people will find it difficult because it is quite a high tax. I would have found the hon. Lady more convincing had she been able to answer the question in my intervention: if not this, what?

We have just had a passionate debate in this House in which the Opposition, understandably, wanted us to do more for Syrian refugees. That takes money. We are already being very generous with our overseas aid budget, and although we understand their motivation they are not proposing lots of reductions in spending.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that in July we voted against the cut in inheritance tax in the Budget, which would bring in another £1 billion in the final year.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

That is interesting, because one of the difficulties with capital taxes is that they are sensitive to the rate and details of the scheme. The first rule of any tax must be that if it is raised, more revenue must be got from it. One thing that is certainly true of this insurance tax is that although we would rather it was at a lower rate, it is still at a low enough rate that if we raised it we would collect more revenue. I am not sure that that is true of the inheritance tax system, and the hon. Lady must understand that quite a lot of her constituents are not very happy about the current regime and are looking for changes.

[Helen Goodman]

The right hon. Gentleman is talking through his hat. In my constituency last year, not one property sold for £650,000 and the Government are raising the threshold to £1 million. It certainly will not affect any of my constituents.

[John Redwood]

The hon. Lady might well find that some of her constituents have aspirations and could be successful; I am surprised that she is so negative about them. Many people in all parts of the country welcome the idea. In 10 or 20 years’ time, if there is a death in the family and assets pass, they would be grateful not to have that limit. It was a good effort and I accept that the hon. Lady came up with the least bad of the Labour attitudes. Everything else that Labour wants to do involves either spending more money or increasing tax rates, which will reduce the revenue.

European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Helen Goodman and John Redwood

Monday 27th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

Yes, some vetoes were surrendered in the Single European Act. I advised against that at the time and, for once, my advice was not accepted.

[Helen Goodman]

Did you vote for it?

[Mr Redwood]

I did not vote for it because I was not a Member of the House when the legislation was passed—I am not that old. I was against giving up the veto then, but the former Prime Minister accepted it because it was in very limited areas. It has subsequently expanded into a huge number of far more important areas, which has led to the passions and frustrations that we hear about every day from our constituents in e-mails and letters and in conversations on the doorstep.

There is an added reason why the veto should be used with respect to this proposal, as has been explained eloquently by the three Members who have made speeches already. The European Union is presuming to intervene in formerly democratic politics in our countries and to build on the technical definition of “citizen” that has been embedded in recent treaties with the idea that people’s primary loyalty should be to the European Union and not to their member state. With these programmes, it is seeking to disrupt loyalty, accountability and sovereignty in its member states still further. This is propaganda on the taxes and expenditure that we do not need at a time of austerity. It is unforgivable that money is being raised from our hard-working constituents and passed to the European Union for propaganda.

I urge the Committee to reject the Minister’s proposal. I urge the Committee to stand up for the British people and for the proper use of taxpayers’ money. I urge the Committee to oppose propaganda on the taxes. I urge the Committee to say to the Government, “When you have a veto, for goodness’ sake use it, because we do not have enough vetoes left.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Goodman]

I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view. However, there are some organisations and institutions in the modern world that have an interest in undermining democracy. There are large global corporations that do not wish to be accountable to any legal framework, whether European or domestic. It is vital that we build a sense of responsibility and citizenship among our citizens, particularly our young people.

[Mr Redwood]

If the hon. Lady is such an advocate of democratic engagement on Europe, why will her party not give the British people a vote on whether they want to stay in it?

[Helen Goodman]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that is a completely different issue and is not what we are discussing today. In fact, I am not even sure whether dilating on the matter would be in order, and I do not wish to cut across the Chair.

It is sensible for there to be education on the EU institutions, particularly for young people. The themes of the projects listed in the introduction to the unnumbered regulation are not as hon. Members have described. They are:

“education, vocational training and youth, sport, culture and the audiovisual sector, fundamental rights and freedoms, social inclusion, gender equality, combating discrimination, research and innovation, information society, enlargement and the external action of the Union.”

Intellectual Property Bill [Lords]

Debate between Helen Goodman and John Redwood

Monday 20th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman]

The point is that the people operating on a commercial scale are in a different category and should be dealt with much more severely. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that education must be part of that strand, but I am uneasy about switching off the internet because, for example, the 12-year-old little sister of a 16-year-old who illegally downloads pop music might be unable to upload her school home work. That does not seem to be the right way to go about dealing with the problem. But if the governing party wants to charge into criminalising every teenager in the land—well, that is an election opportunity for them.

To make any of this happen, it is obvious that we must reform the Intellectual Property Office, which does not have an important role at the moment. The hon. Member for Hove said nothing about what should be done with respect to the industry. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire was absolutely right: we must have an EU approach. I know that that pains Ministers and means that they will have to see off the wilder shores of Euroscepticism, but this is a perfect example of where we need to see a European approach. Two points are particularly important: blocking sites that give people access to material they do not pay for; and requiring search engines to change their algorithms to prioritise legal sites. It is completely disingenuous for them to say, “Oh, we have received 5 million notifications and blah-de-blah-de-blah.” We all know that this is the root cause of the problem, so let us tackle it.

We must remember that this industry is one engine of growth in the British economy, but we must also take seriously the needs and the role of researchers in universities and in the British Library. We must update the law to allow them to have what they need: text mining for non-commercial research; heritage protection by digitising material; a workable private copying regime; and ensuring that the law overrides private contracts on digital material. The Hargreaves report came up with a number of proposals. Some were sensible—on orphan works and digital exchange—while others were perhaps more controversial, but one point on which I think we can all agree is that we do not wish to move the British economy to a litigious model, with the levels of litigation that are prevalent in the United States.

What I will say now relates in part to unregistered design. I have a concern about people putting patents on things that are part of the common culture, either here or overseas. For example, the recipe for a cucumber sandwich or people singing “Ring a Ring O’ Roses” at a children’s birthday party are a part of the common culture. Those examples might seem a little fanciful to hon. Members, but I will provide two examples where the common culture has been appropriated by some people to their financial benefit, and not necessarily to the financial benefit of all.

In the 1950s, some people collecting folk songs went to Teesdale in my constituency. They went right to the top of the dale and met some stonemasons. They got the stonemasons to sing songs and recorded them. They took the recordings away and shared them with people making music. One of the songs they recorded was “Scarborough Fair”. This was given to Simon and Garfunkel, who of course made an absolute fortune with it, and the stonemasons in my constituency made absolutely nothing. I think Simon and Garfunkel are great and they made a lovely production of the song, but it was a part of our common culture.

Today, we see this kind of thing going on in other industries. Sometimes there are glamorous models shimmying along the catwalk wearing prints that, not to put too fine a point on it, have been ripped off from people in Africa. The people in Africa, who have been making the prints for generations, get nothing, but the people who reproduce them patent the design and make an absolute fortune. I am sure that hon. Members agree that this need not to patent the common culture is something that we need to keep in our minds, so that we do not shift from one situation that deprives people who are genuinely making new, scientific innovations and discoveries, to a situation where we put legal attributions on every single idea and part of the common culture.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am a little intrigued by the hon. Lady’s “Scarborough Fair” example. I presume that Simon and Garfunkel rightly had title to their particular performance, but surely they did not gain title to the song? I assume other people can go off and make their own arrangements of it without having to pay Simon and Garfunkel.

[Helen Goodman]

Unhappily, I think that that is exactly what did happen, and that was a mistake. I just want to caution the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool not to make that kind of mistake.

I remind Members that, although we are talking a lot about the implications of new technology, this is a very old problem. I am sure that some Members will know this poem, which is at least 600 years old and is absolutely on the point:

“The law locks up the man or woman

Who steals the goose from off the common

But leaves the greater villain loose

Who steals the common from off the goose.”

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between Helen Goodman and John Redwood

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

That is where I hope, again, we can try to build a little more agreement. We need to work to avoid that kind of problem.

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Mr Redwood]

Let me deal with one intervention and then, of course, I will give way to another.

If we can work to try to prevent that kind of problem from happening again, we might make a bit more progress. My right hon. and hon. Friends have a couple of policies that try to do that. First, they are rightly taking many low-paid people out of tax altogether. I believe in tax cuts for everyone. I do not just want tax cuts for the rich; I want tax cuts for those on middle incomes and low incomes, particularly those at the lower end. The idea of the tax cut for the rich is to get more money out of them; all we are trying to do is get back closer to Labour’s very successful 40% rate, which it kept for almost all the time it was in office. I noticed that its 40% rate collected considerably more revenue than the 50% it bequeathed to the incoming Government, and so it was rather foolish to put in a rate that did not work in taking money off the rich. We are trying to get back to the earlier rate.

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Mr Redwood]

I now give way to the hon. Lady, who will now be duly aroused again.

[Helen Goodman]

The right hon. Gentleman clearly did not read the background papers published with the Budget in March, which showed, incontrovertibly, that the amount of money lost by the cut in the top rate of tax from 50% to 45% was £2.5 billion. As he well knows, the only reason why the Government have got cover is because people have been shuffling their income around from one year to another.

[Mr Redwood]

The hon. Lady has chosen the wrong Member to accuse of not reading the Budget papers properly; I am normally accused by my right hon. Friends of reading them too closely. If she read on through those Budget papers, she would see that that top rate led to an almost 10% reduction in the amount of top-level income tax coming in, which is a very foolish position to get into when we need all the money we can get. My right hon. and hon. Friends are very sensible to try to correct that, in order to get more money off the rich. We need more money off them and less money off people at the other end of the income scale. The way to take less money off people at the other end of that scale is to take them out of tax altogether, and good progress is being made in that regard.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who has not stayed for the rest of the debate but who wisely said that it was more sensible to let people keep the money they earn at the low income levels rather than taking it off them through an expensive tax system and then giving it back through an expensive benefits system; by definition, they get back less overall, because we have to charge them a handling charge, as the rich will not pay all the money we need—they pay only quite a bit of it—and so we also have to tax the poor in order to give them benefits, and that can be silly.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Helen Goodman and John Redwood

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

I hold no brief for the credit rating agencies, but nor have I prepared a case against them. I am sure the hon. Gentleman can make his own case and come up with his own remedies. In my view, there have been many villains in this historic piece, including the regulators, the Bank of England for its misconduct in the money markets, and the commercial banks that took advantage of ridiculously lax conditions and got themselves into a great pickle, which we had to sort out.

[Helen Goodman]

I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, but does he seriously think we could have made significant changes to the way we regulated banks in this country without international agreement on the way banks are regulated?

[Mr Redwood]

Yes, I think we could, which is why I made that recommendation well before the credit crunch occurred. In ’06 and ’07, it was obvious to me and to some other commentators that things were getting out of control—indeed, it was quite common for Opposition parties in this House to say they thought there was too much credit about. I went a bit further and said that could be remedied by changing the way we regulated the banks. It was quite wrong to allow a bank to extend more credit when it only had a 4% tier 1 capital ratio. I remember that when I was a financial regulator, we lived in an era when banks needed twice or three times that amount of capital to be acceptable to the regulator. There was a clear diminution in standards at a crucial time, which fuelled the credit binge.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Debate between Helen Goodman and John Redwood

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

At the end of the period, in 2014-15, the Government plan to spend £92 billion a year more, on current spending, on services than Labour did in its last year—that is a large 15% increase in the amount of cash. We need to ask ourselves why it is that every year public spending increases, yet the Government are proposing some extremely difficult or, in some cases, undesirable choices to be made in subsequent years to try to live within that rather big figure. I suggest to the Government that there are three areas that they could work on, and that their doing so would be in all our interests in this House, because if they could manage them better, they might not need to make so many of those difficult choices in the later years and would still be able to live within their totals and get the deficit down.

The first reason why there is a squeeze on some programmes that many Members do not want to see squeezed is the big rise in money allocated to pay for inflation; the plans assume quite a lot of public sector inflation over the five years. If the Government can do better at buying in goods and services—they are a very big purchaser and they say they are going to do so—they might reduce the average price of bought-in things. Instead of having positive inflation, they would have negative inflation on that part of the programme. If they can do a good deal with their employees, reassure them and get them to accept the kind of measures on pay that are being suggested—I believe that they are talking about a two-year pay freeze, for example—that will take a lot of extra inflation out of the system, because the biggest single item in these budgets is of course pay. Again, the more that we in the public sector can share the pain by moderate means, such as accepting pay restraint, the less we will have to take the difficult choices in later years that are built into the programme.

The next thing is staff numbers. A lot has been made so far in what passes for a debate in this House about having 490,000 fewer jobs in the public sector by the end of the period. These are not 490,000 redundancies. Given the large rate of resignations and retirements in the public sector to which the Chancellor has referred, I hope that most can be taken care of by eliminating posts after people have resigned or left.

[Helen Goodman]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Of course, in a very small-minded way, what he says is right. If those jobs are cut, where does he think that young people will get the new jobs that they need?

[Mr Redwood]

In the private sector, which is already generating tens of thousands of jobs every month. That is what we need to do. I am not saying that there should be a complete staff freeze. For example, if 480,000 a year are leaving, which was the Chancellor’s figure in the Budget, 250,000 people could be hired while still achieving half the reduction in the first year. I think that the Chancellor might have been a bit optimistic, but he referred to an 8% rate. If the percentage was half as great, the reduction could still be made in the first two years. There could be reductions of 250,000 without a single redundancy.

I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends not to pursue the redundancy route wherever possible. It is expensive, unpleasant and disruptive. I do not want to see lots of people retiring early from the administrative services on big pensions, and I do not want to see redundancy payments made with people coming back into the public sector at a later date, leaving us to wonder why all the cost and disruption has been incurred.

The next big area that puts pressure on the increased money is debt interest. I entirely agree with the Government, and with Opposition Members who knew this when they were in government, that we have to bring the deficit down before it kills the whole budget. If we allow the deficit to keep on rising, as the Opposition originally proposed, debt interest will take more and more of the increased spending and we will have to make unpleasant cuts to the things that matter. How can we reduce that debt interest burden more quickly? If we can get more cash into the public sector, starting today—we do not need to wait to start the programme next year, as is implied in the figures—we will reduce the increase in the debt day by day. If we sell more assets, we will not have to raise so much money in the debt markets, which will keep the debt down.

It is very good news that the Government’s programme has restored a lot of confidence in the markets, so that the rate at which they now have to borrow is now lower. That will obviously make a contribution to getting the debt interest rate programme down.

I have to say to the Government that I do not think that we can afford to give £80 billion to foreign countries over the CSR period. If we add the overseas aid programme to the European Union programme, the total is £80 billion over the period. I do not want to take any money away from the poorest countries or from humanitarian aid. Those are good things and I fully support the Government’s intention to carry on with them, but I do not think that there is any need to subsidise China, India or Russia—nuclear weapons powers with, in the case of China, $2.5 trillion in the bank. It is a bit odd to give China a grant when we then have to borrow the money from China to pay the grant to China. That cannot make any sense.

I believe that the Government are now going to remove the aid to the richer and more successful countries. Cannot we pocket that for a couple of years and then become more generous when we have the deficit under control? May we please get the European amounts down? They are the most unforgivable ones; poor people in Britain are paying tax to offer grants to rich countries in Europe, and that is not acceptable in the current conditions.

The more that these pressures—the grants abroad, debt interest, costs, inflation and staff numbers—can be abated, the more we will have money available to do better things with the growing programmes. It is good news that nine of the Departments have level or rising cash throughout the period, but it is bad news that one or two other Departments will find that the shoe pinches a lot. That is why I think that we need to make more rapid progress in controlling costs and staff numbers, particularly in administration, and in dealing with the debt interest programmes, so that we have a bit more free to ease those areas that will be very tight in future years.

I do not for one moment believe the figures from 2013 to 2015 anyway, because I think that they will be subject to subsequent revision because of the pressure of events. As inflation changes, we will need to revise them. As the state of the economy changes, we will need to revise them one way or the other. Let us hope it will outperform and we will have a bit more scope.

As an election draws near, politicians tend to want to spend more, so we should discount the 2013-15 figures and concentrate on what is happening now. Will the Government please bring forward as many of the reductions as possible to this year, and not wait until next year? The more we save now, the less we borrow and the more the pressure is reduced on subsequent years’ programmes.