G20

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 7th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

With great respect to the hon. Lady, this Government—and to an extent the Governments whom she supported—have made and kept promises about things that our constituents care about, such as development and climate change. We are meeting those. As for being a good neighbour, one of the most unneighbourly acts someone could perform when the whole world is looking at growing the resources of the IMF to safeguard the global economy is to walk away from that and vote against it—something that I know that quite a lot of Labour MPs, probably including some on the Front Bench, are rather ashamed of. Such an act would show them to be not only not a good neighbour, but on another planet.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

As there is a danger of the euro crisis now spreading to Italy, can the Prime Minister tell me what the leaders of euroland have said they will do by way of buying Italian bonds or offering subsidised loans to Italy to head off the crisis in the market there?

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend asks an important question. It goes back to the question that the Father of the House asked, about the actions of the ECB. The ECB has been intervening in markets and buying bonds of countries that are under pressure. That is what makes it so difficult to understand why some in Europe are so opposed to the ECB being more of a monetary activist, if I could put it that way. The key with Italy—everyone should be careful about speculating about another country—and the point I made in my statement is that Italy must demonstrate that it has a credible fiscal path. That is as much about the confidence of the markets that it will be able to pay its deficit and pay its debts. If it can do that, its interest rates will fall.

City Status (Reading)

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hancock. I am delighted that we are able to have this debate in the week after Reading’s formal application for city status was submitted.

I am sure that the Minister has seen the excellent bid document, which was put together jointly by the local council, representatives of business, our local papers—the Reading Post and the Reading Chronicle—Reading’s voluntary groups and other excellent local organisations. The document encompasses the very heart and soul of Reading: an economic powerhouse with a distinguished past, a vibrant present and a bright future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper)is not only a very able Minister but an extremely fair individual. I do not expect that in his response today he will suddenly announce that on the strength of this debate Reading has been awarded city status. That would be nice, but I will not hold my breath. We all understand that Reading’s bid, along with all the others, will need to be properly evaluated. Nevertheless, I think that at the end of the evaluation process the Minister will find that if he takes the best bits from each bid—a long and varied history, deep links to royalty, excellent sporting, cultural and retail facilities, outstanding educational establishments, an active civic society and voluntary sector, economic leadership on an international scale and a self-confident people reflecting the cosmopolitan nature of 21st-century Britain—he will have Reading down to a tee. Reading represents not just cool Britannia but rule Britannia, when it comes to leading on international jobs, growth and economic activity. My home town of Reading, where I grew up and went to school, is a microcosm of all that is best, bold and bright about Britain today.

I will take the rest of my time to spell out the detail of Reading’s pre-eminent bid, and our powerful and persuasive case for city status. Reading began life as a Saxon settlement in the early seventh century and was first mentioned in written history in the “Anglo-Saxon Chronicle”. In 1121, Henry I, the youngest son of William the Conqueror, laid the foundation stone for Reading abbey. Over time, Reading became one of the most important religious and political centres in Europe. Henry was buried at the abbey, making Reading one of only a handful of towns where British monarchs are buried.

Reading’s association with royalty has continued through the ages. Reading abbey was consecrated in the presence of Henry II. Admittedly, Henry VIII put a damper on things by dissolving the abbey, and the last abbot, Hugh Cook Faringdon, suffered the occupational hazard of not recognising Henry as head of the Church and was duly executed outside the abbey gates. However, the outlook for Reading improved with Queen Elizabeth I’s ascent to the throne. She visited Reading on several occasions and granted the town borough status.

Fast-forwarding to today, Reading is the county town of the royal county of Berkshire and is the birthplace of our future Queen, the Duchess of Cambridge. Interestingly, there are no cities in the royal county. It would therefore be fitting, in the year after a magnificent royal wedding—the year of Her Majesty the Queen’s diamond jubilee—for Reading to be granted city status.

When it comes to sporting, cultural and retail facilities, Reading leads the way. We have a premiership football club in Reading FC, which temporarily finds itself in the championship. The club’s home, Madejski stadium, is a modern facility of which any city would be proud. Reading football club is a beacon, a community-based club that was named family club of the year in 2010. The stadium is also home to London Irish rugby club and was voted the best place to watch rugby in a 2010 survey.

The local council operates seven leisure centres. Rivermead centre is home to the nationally successful Reading Rockets basketball team. The River Thames is the base for many rowing and canoeing clubs, and the Redgrave Pinsent rowing lake, a purpose-built marina at Caversham, will be the training base for Team GB rowing before the 2012 Olympics. In addition, Reading has flourishing clubs and facilities for cricket, hockey, athletics, swimming, golf and gymnastics. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that represents a wide range of facilities to satisfy the most demanding of sportsmen and women.

To soothe the senses, Reading offers many parks and playgrounds spread across the borough, as well as riverside walks and beautiful vistas across the Thames. Reading is also a shoppers’ paradise. The town is one of the top retail destinations in the UK, and the Oracle shopping centre on the banks of the River Kennet, with more than 120 retail units, is the region’s premier retail and leisure destination, offering restaurants and cinemas as well as shopping. Reading attracts shoppers from as far afield as Bracknell, Newbury, Royal Windsor and Henley. In addition to the Oracle shopping complex, we have the popular Broad street mall and a large range of major national and international brand stores, with Apple recently announced. Of course, in keeping with tradition, Reading also operates a farmers’ market and a street market.

For the outside visitor, Reading offers a wide range of accommodation, ranging from chic boutique hotels such as the Forbury and Malmaison and luxury chains such as Hilton and Crown Plaza to high-standard independent guest houses. If the Minister has not yet made plans for his summer holidays, may I recommend a few days in Reading? As well as enjoying our sporting, retail and leisure facilities, he and his family will be able to check out our various museums and enjoy a play or concert at the famous Hexagon theatre. If he comes during the August bank holiday weekend, he will be able to visit the internationally renowned Reading festival, set on the banks of the Thames. I suspect that he is tempted by Reading’s offer. Perhaps he will tell me in his response whether he would like me to reserve some accommodation for him during August.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I wish my hon. Friend every success. He is making an elegant case for city status for Reading, but will he reassure Wokingham that no extraterritorial demands will be made if Reading gains the honour of being a city?

[Alok Sharma]

I thank my right hon. Friend for raising that point. Our bid is clear. It is based on the document. Reading is a friendly town—its Members of Parliament are extremely friendly—and we will certainly ensure that whatever Reading does in future is on a co-operative and friendly basis.

Educationally, Reading offers a centre of excellence in many areas. We have a top-rated university that carries out internationally recognised work across various departments including cybernetics, meteorology, engineering and agriculture. The university’s Henley business school is an international leader. Some of our state schools, such as Kendrick school for girls and Reading school for boys, consistently top the national league tables for exam results, as do a number of our independent schools. There is also the excellent Avenue school in the heart of my constituency, a special school for boys and girls between the ages of two and 19 who have complex special educational needs. I have seen at first hand the work that Avenue staff do with pupils, and it is truly outstanding. The school is a benchmark of excellence for special schools throughout the country.

I am also pleased that some schools in Reading have already embraced the freedom that academy status offers. Several have converted to academies, and others are considering conversion. One of the first free schools in the country, All Saints junior school, backed by local parents and the community, will open its door to pupils in my constituency in September. The setting up of the school is a textbook case of go-getting, entrepreneurial Reading parents who want the best for all children in the town. It reflects Reading’s positive, can-do attitude.

The people of Reading are undoubtedly go-getting—I will talk shortly about the economic leadership that we provide—but ours is also a caring and compassionate town. We have one of the most active voluntary and community sectors in the south-east. Reading has more than 400 organisations that contribute to the town’s well-being, and many volunteers who put something back into the local community. Our Churches, in particular, are the backbone of many community organisations and provide support to all those in need of help and advice.

Some months ago, I was asked to address a conference organised by Reading Voluntary Action. The event was billed as a cross-sector conference involving all agencies interested in growing a genuine big society in Reading. The event was extremely well attended by voluntary groups from across Reading. The big society is flourishing in my home town. I hope that when all the bids for city status are evaluated, Ministers will reflect not just on the tangibles but on the intangibles, such as the generosity of spirit of a town and its people. I am confident that on that measure alone, Reading will be seen to lead the way.

On Reading’s economic prowess, thanks to the dire financial legacy that the coalition Government inherited from Labour, we must take action to eliminate Labour’s structural deficit. I do not want to turn this debate into an exposé of the previous Government’s mishandling of the economy, but the context is important. Last year’s emergency Budget was about rescuing the nation’s finances; this year’s Budget was about doing what was possible to help families with the cost of living and, importantly, reforming the economy to create jobs and growth for the future. The jobs and growth that will make our economy power ahead in the coming years will come from the private sector, and will be created in places such as Reading.

Reading is the commercial centre of the Thames valley and has 1,000 years of trading history. Historically known as a traditional manufacturing centre, it became famous internationally for its three Bs: biscuits, bulbs and beer. Huntley and Palmers biscuits, Suttons Seeds and, in its most recent guise, the Courage brewery all operated in the town until fairly recently. Indeed, the brewery survived until last year. For some towns, the demise of major traditional businesses can, sadly, spell economic decline, but Reading has had a continued, uninterrupted economic renaissance. Biscuits, bulbs and beer have given way to IT, industry and innovation. We are an undoubted economic powerhouse.

If we as a country are to compete successfully in the coming years against the likes of China and India, our knowledge-based companies and the value-added jobs that they create will be key. Reading is undoubtedly a leader in both home-grown and international knowledge-based companies. Yell, Premier Foods, National Grid, Prudential, BG Group, Logica, Procter and Gamble, Wipro, Cisco, Microsoft, Oracle, Verizon, Symantec, Rockwell Collins and Thales are just some of the companies that consider Reading home. Leading-edge innovation and research and development are now part of the DNA of Reading’s business sector, and the university of Reading works in close partnership with the business community. Reading is also a centre for finance, insurance and banking and provides many jobs in the town. Our work force is one of the most highly skilled in the country.

Earlier this year, the Centre for Cities, an independent, non-partisan research and policy institute, named Reading as one of the five “cities to watch” in its annual index, “Cities Outlook 2011”. The report noted that Reading has high potential to create private sector jobs and one of the highest employment rates in the country. There was clear recognition of Reading’s economic strength and, interestingly, it referenced Reading as a city.

Reading clearly punches above its weight on the international stage and, for many, is already regarded as a city. The greater Reading economic area is home to about 2,000 foreign-owned businesses, employing about 100,000 people, which reinforces our international position. Last year, Reading was named Europe’s top micro city for infrastructure, thanks to its strong road and rail network and unrivalled access to markets. Moreover, the foreign direct investment report ranked Reading eighth in the overall list of Europe’s top micro cities, based on economic potential and quality of life.

Certainly, Reading’s connectivity and closeness to London are key success factors in our economic dominance, and continued investment in infrastructure has played an important role. Recently, we have seen the remodelling and improvement of junction 11 on the M4, and we are in the middle of an £860 million upgrade to Reading railway station, managed by Network Rail. Already the second biggest interchange outside London, Reading station’s redevelopment assumes a doubling of passengers by 2035, from 14 million to 28 million. Reading is truly a gateway to the rest of the country and we are open for business.

Reading has also produced its fair share of authors, actors, musicians, entrepreneurs and scientists who have helped to put the town on the map. To name but a few: Jane Austen, Mary Mitford, Sam Mendes, Kate Winslet, Ricky Gervais, Jacqueline Bisset, Marianne Faithfull, Kenneth Branagh, Mike Oldfield, David Lean, Ross Brawn, John Kendrick, Alfred Waterhouse, Henry Addington, who was a former Prime Minister, and, most recently, Sir John Madejski, who has given so much to the town.

Reading is well represented in the current Parliament. At least eight Members were educated or grew up in Reading. It is said that Charles Dickens was asked to stand as MP for Reading, but turned down the request. Frankly, it was Dickens’s loss. We now have our own literary giant of an MP, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Mr Wilson), who will speak in this debate.

In conclusion, Reading already has many of the attributes of a city. We are the largest town that is not a city in the country. Indeed, Reading is larger than more than 40 cities in the UK, including your great city of Portsmouth, Mr. Hancock. Reading is today a cosmopolitan place and our diversity is our strength. We are a town at ease with ourselves, a town that knows its time has arrived. We are the bookies’ favourite for city status and I hope that, after this debate, although he will not be able to say it, we will be the Minister’s favourite as well. I thank him for listening so patiently, and I look forward to his response.

House of Lords Reform (Draft Bill)

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

Whatever one’s views about the Church, it is a fact that it is an established Church, and that is reflected in the composition of the House of Lords. As for ministerial appointments by the Prime Minister, we think it acceptable in principle—and this is another matter that we would invite the Joint Committee to examine—for future Prime Ministers to make supernumerary appointments of Ministers to the reformed House of Lords, but only for the duration of their holding of ministerial office. In other words, there would be a temporary mechanism whereby Ministers appointed by the Prime Minister could be held to account by one or other of the Houses in Westminster.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

What sort of people does the Deputy Prime Minister wish to select for this hybrid Chamber, and why does he think that those skills would be lacking under a fully elected system?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

It would not be up to me, or to any members of future Governments, to make such selections. Core to the proposals in the Bill for the model of 80% elected and 20% appointed is the making of appointments by an entirely independent and statutory appointments commission, the process conducted in an entirely open and meritocratic manner.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Edward Miliband]

To be fair to the Prime Minister, he conducted this debate in the right terms. Let me say to the hon. Gentleman that today is not the day for party political point-scoring. Let me say this also: in 2005, when Tony Blair made the decision that he made, voices were not raised against him, because there was no sign of a popular uprising in Libya. What people worried about was Colonel Gaddafi—and the Prime Minister eloquently described the problems and dangers posed by him—possessing nuclear weapons and threatening the rest of the world, and I think that Tony Blair was right to try to bring him into the international community.

A debate is often conducted about rights to intervene, but this debate is about not rights but responsibilities. The decade-long debate about the “responsibility to protect” speaks precisely to this question. As the House will know, the responsibility to protect was adopted in 2005 at the world summit and was endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly and the United Nations Security Council, and it should help to frame our debate today. It identifies a “responsibility to react” to

“situations of compelling human need with appropriate measures…and in extreme cases military intervention”.

It identifies four cautionary tests which will help us in this debate as we consider intervention:

“right intention, last resort, proportional means and reasonable prospects”.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The Leader of the Opposition is making a very thoughtful case. Can he tell us how much intervention he thinks it reasonable for the west to make in what is really a civil war in which the rebel side is experiencing considerable difficulties?

[Edward Miliband]

I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not agree that this is a civil war. There was a popular uprising against the Gaddafi regime that Gaddafi is cruelly and brutally trying to suppress. I think that we should bear that in mind as we implement the terms of the resolution.

The responsibility to protect identifies those four tests that we should apply, and I think that they will inform the debate today. The first is the test of “right intentions”. Our intentions are right: we are acting to protect the Libyan people, to save lives, and to prevent the Gaddafi regime from committing serious crimes against humanity. We do not seek commercial gain or geopolitical advantage, and we are not intending to occupy Libya or seize her natural resources. This is not a power play or an attempt to install a new Government by force. Colonel Gaddafi is the one who is trying to impose his political will with violence, and our role is to stop him.

This is the “last resort” to protect the Libyan people. Sanctions and other measures have been tried, including in resolution 1970, and they have not stopped Colonel Gaddafi. As the Prime Minister said, his ceasefire was simply a lie paraded to the international community before his forces once again attacked Benghazi. As for proportionality, the UN resolution makes it clear that the means must be proportional, and we should always follow that in what we do.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill (Money) (No. 2)

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I beg to move,

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of charges payable to the Chief Counting Officer in connection with the referendum on the voting system for parliamentary elections.

The resolution relates to Lords amendments 31 to 34 to paragraph 20 of schedule 1, which were inserted in the Bill in Lords Committee. The resolution gives the chief counting officer, who is the chair of the Electoral Commission, a power to incur expenses for the effective conduct of the referendum in certain, limited circumstances and to make payments in respect of those expenses out of the moneys to be provided from the Consolidated Fund. The original money resolution, which was agreed to on Second Reading in this House, covered only the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of charges payable to regional counting officers and counting officers in connection with the conduct of the referendum.

This additional resolution is needed because it has become apparent to the Government and the Electoral Commission that further savings in the cost of the referendum can be made by allowing the chief counting officer to pay costs directly from the Consolidated Fund. For example, Royal Mail has indicated that it may be able to provide a cheaper service for any sweeps of mail centres—a service to ensure that any postal votes still in mail centres towards the end of polling day are identified, extracted and provided to returning and counting officers before the close of poll that evening—if it can contract for this on a national basis with one individual, rather than having to negotiate and contract with the more than 350 officers conducting the poll locally. The resolution is therefore pragmatic.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Those of us who are worried about the amount of money to be spent on the proposal might be persuaded a little more if the Minister could give us an idea of by how much the cost will come down as a result of this resolution, and say what other measures he can take to try to secure better value.

[Mr Harper]

I can reassure the House that, because of the way the Bill and the amendments are drafted, the chief counting officer can directly recover expenditure only where it has been incurred in a way that provides a clear financial benefit to the public purse. The test is that the chief counting officer may recover expenditure that she has incurred for the purpose of running the referendum only where that expenditure would have been incurred by local or regional counting officers in any event, but where it was more economical for it to be incurred by the chief counting officer. The resolution is therefore aimed at saving money.

[Mr Redwood]

How much?

[Mr Harper]

The whole point is that it is not possible to predict every eventuality. The resolution says that if by spending money herself centrally, the chief counting officer can get services at a lower cost than all the individual regional counting officers, she will be able to do so, thereby delivering a saving, although it is not possible to quantify this in advance. I have given a specific example of where we know there is an ability to deliver a saving, but I cannot give my right hon. Friend the certainty on the numbers that he seeks. However, having given him the detail that I am able to, I commend this resolution to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

We are debating a money resolution, the whole purpose of which is for the House to exert some control over the expenditures of public money and to be accountable for them. I find it curious that the Minister was unable to tell us how much money was involved in the wider issue of paying for the referendum, and unable to help the House by telling us by how much he might be able to reduce that rather large bill as a result of this mini motion.

Many of us are reluctant about the entire measure; we do not think that it is either urgent or important, but we believe that controlling public expenditure is vital. When we see discretionary items such as this one, we are even more enthusiastic about exerting very strong control over the expenditure if it proves to be the will of Parliament as a whole that the proposal goes forward. I hope that when the Minister replies, he will have some figures to present to us and will be able to give us a little encouragement about why we should support this particular money resolution. He hinted that it could mean a bit less, but some of us would like it to be a lot less. I hope the Minister will think again.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 24th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am not quite sure what my hon. Friend is driving at.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Another way that Parliament could do what it wished would be to repeal this legislation by a simple majority.

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, in the sense that this is an Act of Parliament and can be repealed, but the difference is that it will then engage the other place, in which the Government do not have a majority—and in which we will still not have one when the new peers have been introduced. We think that putting the provision in legislation is preferable to putting it in Standing Orders because the Government then have to get the Bill through both Houses of Parliament, in one of which they do not have a majority—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) says that the Government will have a majority, but no. Even when the new list of working peers has been created, the two governing parties together will not have a majority. There are Cross Benchers in the Upper House, which he keeps forgetting.

For those reasons, I think that amendment 4 is flawed. If it is pressed to a vote, I urge my hon. Friends to oppose it. The Government’s position is very clear. We want fixed-term Parliaments but we want there to be two circumstances in which there can be an early general election: when there is a traditional motion of no confidence, in which a simple majority is enough to say that a Government have lost the confidence of the House; and when the House uses its new power to force an early election, which is decided by two thirds of the Members of the House. The same provision is in the Scotland Act 1998 for the Scottish Parliament. I should say that it is the same provision, because in Scotland it is two thirds of all Members, not just those voting. The hon. Member for Rhondda did not get that quite right.

Whichever of the amendments is pressed to a vote, I urge hon. Members to reject it. We can then move on.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

John Redwood Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan]

No, because I shall sit down soon and the hon. Gentleman can make his own contribution then.

We have already seen an attempt to create confusion, with some of the obfuscation and the diversionary amendments from hon. Members previously. I am particularly worried that amendment 247 could be a recipe for serious mischief and utter grief as far as the conduct of the referendum is concerned. I wait to hear what more the Government will say about their amendment 264, which seems relatively straightforward. However, if the choice is between the two non-Government amendments in the group, I would prefer amendment 136, although I have my reservations.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

If we have a body such as the Electoral Commission which needs to be impartial, it is most important that we should not charge it with deeds that put it in a position where others may think that it is not being impartial. I therefore hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the points made from the Opposition Front Bench and to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), because there is a danger here.

The process may start with the best of intentions. The Electoral Commission might feel that its draftsmen and women are sufficiently capable of setting out, in short and clear prose, exactly how the two different systems operate. However, it is easy to tiptoe from straightforward explanations of complex systems to value judgments. As we have already heard from my hon. Friend in speaking to his amendment, the language describing the two systems is already charged with prejudice and opinion. Calling the current system “first past the post” may make it attractive to those who like horse racing, but it may also make it anathema to those who do not, because it perhaps invites a comparison with the grand national, about which people have passionate views, both for and against.

“First past the post” is not a particularly elegant way of describing a system in which the person who gets the most votes wins, which is probably how I would describe the current system. People can win an election by having more votes than any other candidate in that election. That is a relatively simple approach, but it is not contained in the name of the system. I find the alternative vote much more difficult to describe. As colleagues will know, I am probably not a great fan of it. It is inherently complicated, because of the reallocation of votes and the fact that people who vote for losing candidates effectively vote twice, while people who vote for winning candidates vote only once. Again, however, that takes us into opinion. I am setting out my opinion, but how does one describe the system in language that does not in some way prejudice that description or imply that the extra choice for some electors is a good thing, and that people should therefore warm towards it?

It will be very difficult for the Electoral Commission to come up with language describing both systems that is thought to be fair, and this is particularly true for the alternative vote. There will be rows over the question, which will drag the Electoral Commission into the proper conduct of the election. That raises the danger of a well-intentioned body being dragged into a political argument that it should be well above, leading to the possibility of one or both sides in the referendum campaign feeling that they have not been fairly treated, because a word, a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph or even a whole document was in some way misleading, or was telling only half the story or using prejudicial language.

[Mr Jenkin]

Let me apprise my right hon. Friend of an example of just such a problem. I have seen the Electoral Commission asked whether it is true that a candidate has to get 50% of the vote to win under the alternative vote system. The Electoral Commission immediately replied that this was a subjective judgment and that it would not get dragged into the evaluation of the two systems, but how then could it describe the system? It is either correct that a candidate needs more than 50% of the votes to win or it is not, so what is the Electoral Commission going to say? Will it decline to inform the voters about the very nature of the system in order to avoid controversy? If so, it might as well not put out any information at all.

[Mr Redwood]

I agree, and the conclusion is just that: the Electoral Commission should not put out information because that might drag it into the debate. The whole purpose of testing a proposition in a referendum or testing candidates in an election is to allow a free exchange of ideas and views. The two campaigns will, of course, be heavily involved, but there will also be lots of other people, institutions, media representatives and newspapers claiming to be doing impartial analysis on the claims of the two sides. Some of them might even do something that gets close to being an impartial analysis of the claims of the two sides, but they will all discover, as we saw in the last general election, that having something that everybody regards as impartial is an impossibility.

The issue behind this debate may be for the political classes only. I do not think that it is the subject of much discussion in the pubs, clubs or schools of Wokingham, for example, but it is of passionate interest to the political classes. A large number of people now earn their living out of politics one way or another, and they will be watching every word and every sign, in every part of the referendum campaign, to see how it is going and whether it is fair.

I do not think that the Minister is about to give ground on the non-Government amendments in this group. I would therefore urge him to say to the Electoral Commission, ex cathedra, from his pulpit, “We love you dearly. We wish you to be impartial. Hesitate, hesitate and hesitate again before you start to make statements about this highly charged territory.” While there may be 40 million people out there who are not much moved by this subject, there are another 1 million or 2 million who are very moved by it—whose livelihoods depend on it or who are preoccupied by it—who will be watching every word. It will be extremely difficult to come up with that perfect, impartial prose that even describes the system, let alone avoids the obvious pitfall of wandering into opinion. There is nothing more annoying in the heat of an election campaign than for someone to claim impartiality, but then to say something critical of one’s own position, which is what happened in the last general election.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I would like to bring to my right hon. Friend’s attention a particular difficulty in Wales that may be relevant. On the day that the referendum is taking place, a Welsh Assembly election is also taking place, the vote for which will use yet another system. I wonder whether he has a view on whether we are confusing people even further, and in particular the Electoral Commission, by suggesting that it needs to explain that the subject of the referendum is a different system from that being used when people cast their votes on the same day.

[Mr Redwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. A powerful point for the no case in the referendum—the case against a change in our electoral system—is just that: that so many electoral systems are already in use, particularly in Wales and Scotland, that it could become quite complicated for people trying to remember which system they are voting under. If people are voting under a system other than the current, general system for the national election, they may wish to vote more tactically. One feature of AV is that a natural Liberal Democrat voter who wanted to make their party greener might think it a good idea to vote Green for their first preference and to give the Liberal Democrats only their second preference. That would be a perfectly rational strategy for that voter to make their party greener, but they would need to know that they were voting under that system to make doing so sensible.

However, I have wandered a little from my main point, which is that in order to preserve that impartiality, it is better to say nothing. The whole point of an election is to tease out the issues, so that electors can make their own decisions. In the last general election, the different parties made claims, and we then had to watch or listen to the BBC come out with so-called experts who said that they could find the truth, either by saying that it was between the two parties, or by concluding that neither party was telling the truth and then coming up with the BBC truth. This is a free society, and that was probably quite helpful in the election—if that is what turned the BBC on and what it wanted to pay people good salaries to do—but I do not think that many voters think, “Ah! At last I’ve got the impartial truth! The BBC correspondent has told me that Labour weren’t right on this issue and that the Tories weren’t right on that issue, so I now know the truth.” I think that the elector goes off and forms their own judgment.

[George Eustice]

I want to pick up on the point about impartiality. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to guarantee the impartiality of the Electoral Commission and the information it puts out is to ensure that it has the agreement of both campaigns, which would prevent it from straying into this area? It was said earlier that the no campaign in a previous referendum was putting out misinformation, but in this referendum the NO2AV campaign has called for the Electoral Commission to issue an explanatory booklet because we want that information out there. Does my right hon. Friend understand that that information will be stronger if it is agreed by both campaigns?

[Mr Redwood]

I am grateful for that intervention, from which I learned that the no campaign would like one of these booklets. However, I rather prefer the lock on the door that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is proposing, as I remain to be persuaded that such a booklet can be phrased in a way that everybody would find fair. The fairest thing to do is to put this lock on the door; then we will know that we have had a fair referendum because everybody will have consented to it.

If the Minister will accept amendment 247, that will be wonderful and my hon. Friends will rest content. If, as I suspect, he will not, will he at least say that he will warn the Electoral Commission not to try to write a definitive document, as it would just be torn to pieces?

[Mr Harper]

There are three amendments in the group, which seek to clarify the role of the Electoral Commission in providing information about the voting systems on which the public will be asked to vote. I ask hon. Members to support Government amendment 264, which clarifies the Electoral Commission’s role, making it clear that it can make appropriate information available in line with its stated intention to provide strictly factual or neutral information to voters on how the different systems work in practice.

Hon. Members will know that when the Electoral Commission was doing its research on the question, which we debated last week, one important conclusion highlighted the limited knowledge of voters about different voting systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) raised the same point in his remarks. The report acknowledged that the referendum campaigns and media coverage will increase public understanding. The current public awareness role of the Electoral Commission, seen in paragraph 7 of schedule 1, is to provide information about the mechanics of the referendum—how it takes place and how to vote in it. My hon. Friend had a bit of fun with the language earlier, but I am sure we can agree that what is important is the practicalities rather than whether to vote yes or no. We are not going to table an amendment to mandate the answer, I am afraid to say. The Government are, of course, neutral on the result.

The current paragraph 7 of schedule 1 does not necessarily envisage giving factual information about the two voting systems and it is unclear whether the general awareness role in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 really enabled what was intended, which was to allow the commission to publish information about a voting system that is the subject of a future referendum. We wanted to make the position clear—hence Government amendment 264, so that the Electoral Commission can indeed make that information available.

Public Bodies Reform

John Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is a lot of interest and little time, so brevity both from Back Benchers and Front Benchers is vital.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

How will we be less bossed about and over-regulated as a result of these changes?

Treatment of Detainees

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I am very keen on recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee. Another of its excellent recommendations was a border police force. On intercept, we all, I think, want to see that happen. We all want more of those accused of terrorism to go through the court process, and to be tried, convicted and imprisoned—and intercept evidence would be hugely helpful. However, it is extremely difficult to do. One of the greatest enthusiasts in the last Parliament—apart from myself—for intercept evidence being available in court was the former Member for Folkestone, Michael Howard. He was on that Committee, but did not find a way to make this happen, so let us not overestimate how easy it is to do; it is not easy at all.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I strongly welcome the Prime Minister’s approach. Does he agree that recent years have shown that targeted surveillance and intelligence are much more successful at defending a free society than an ever greater extension of guards, guns and gates? This is why his work is so important. We need intelligence services that command universal respect and get to the truth as quickly as possible.

[The Prime Minister]

My right hon. Friend is completely right. We need a robust and hard-nosed defence of our liberty, which means having security services that can work properly. That is why today’s announcement is important. However, we do not need what I would call ineffective authoritarianism, of which we had a bit too much under the previous regime—although I do not want to get political, as this is not a political day.

Debate on the Address

John Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I should like to express my gratitude to the voters of Wokingham for renewing their confidence in me and returning me to the House. It is particularly comforting that I got more than half the vote at a time when the idea of the alternative vote is in the wind. I am sure that colleagues will think long and hard about that as they look at their own electoral positions as well as the national interest.

During the general election campaign, my electors—I am sure like those in many other constituencies—expressed their deep sorrow that the Equitable Life victims had not yet been compensated. It is extremely good news to see a Conservative pledge—and perhaps it is also a Lib Dem pledge—honoured immediately in the Queen’s Speech. The compensation is the victims’ due, owing to the bad regulation of that business, and the pledge is that it will now be paid more promptly. We look forward to the statement that is to be made.

An even larger number of my electors in Wokingham were extremely worried about the impact of the very large amount of new housing that the former Government and their regional planning authority were imposing on my constituency. I argued long, and I hope clearly, that, were a Conservative Government to be elected, they should sweep away the regional housing targets and the regional planning system. I argued that the unitary Wokingham borough council should be allowed to make more of its own planning decisions, and my hope was that the new Government would allow the council to come to a wiser judgment about how many new homes should be made available.

Some new homes must be made available, but we must avoid building on floodplains or in back gardens. We must avoid the town cramming and all the other unpleasant features of the last 13 years that my electors had come to dislike. Again, therefore, it is very good news that the coalition has come together and that it has promised in this Queen’s Speech that there will be early action to deal with such matters.

Many of my voters were also extremely worried by the lack of progress by the Environment Agency and the relevant ministry in tackling problems of flooding. These problems have been made particularly acute in my constituency by the over-building in inappropriate places that has been determined by Government inspectors in recent years. I have seen the tragic sight of new homes being completely flooded six months after they were built and sold because they were put in the wrong place by a Government inspector who did not seem to understand the nature of a floodplain. I look forward to the planning system helping with that, but I shall also be calling on my colleagues who are now Ministers to see what else we can do to right the wrongs caused by homes being built in places without adequate flood defences.

I wish to concentrate on the central thrust of the Gracious Speech—the issue of the deficit. “There is no money left”: how kind it was of an outgoing Labour Minister to make that clear. What better independent authentication of all that we said in the general election could we want than that note from the outgoing Chief Secretary to the Treasury? He should know, although I do not quite understand his taste in jokes: none of the rest of us thinks that his remark is at all funny. It is poignant and sad, and it sums up the tragic end of the long Labour Government.

From what we have heard so far in this short debate, there are still Labour Members who do not seem to be able to distinguish between the deficit and the debt. We have already heard one say that he does not think that it is right to start paying down £6 billion of the debt this early. However, we are not talking about paying down—or paying off—£6 billion of the debt. We are talking about trying to stop the debt from going up by quite as much. We are talking about a debt that, on the outgoing Labour Government’s figures, is rising by £150 billion or £160 billion a year. So far, we have come up with a welcome but modest proposal to start to reverse the trend that is our ever-climbing deficit.

We meet as a new Parliament in very difficult and dangerous times, and I think that people have high hopes of us. I think that it was good that there was some democratic renewal in the election: more people wanted to vote, and they took the election seriously and wanted to express an opinion. However, Parliament must understand—as those of us who were in the previous one surely do—that we are on probation. It is up to us to prove to the public that this Parliament can be so much better than the last one, and that we can tackle the serious issues in a sensible way.

Of course, there must be robust debate and challenge to the Executive—and I suspect that that must come not only from those on the Opposition Benches. Of course, there will be periods of humour and light-hearted relief, and the speeches made at the start of this debate were notably good and humorous. However, we must restore the trust of the British people and ensure that they feel proud of their Parliament again. To do that, this Parliament must engage more actively with the Executive, thank and reward them when they get something right and make sure that they understand when they get something wrong. We must press and press the Executive until they get things right, for the sake of the wider public good and the wider national interest.

The country has very warm feelings towards the coalition. I welcome the coalition, as it was the only way we could go forward, given the nature of the election result. It is not for us to criticise the electorate for the judgment they made. Each individual made his or her judgment for good reasons, in good conscience. It is up to us to make the best of the result that they have produced. Looking at the arithmetic, even sensible Labour Members would agree that the only conceivable way of offering this country some stable government for a reasonable period was for the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives to find how many things they could agree about, and to agree to disagree about the other things and not to highlight them for a period while we offer stable government.

I am sure that Labour Members will play endless games suggesting that a Liberal Democrat said one thing and a Conservative said another before the election, but they should move on. It is not interesting. We all know that—we were fighting each other in an election. We still disagree about some fundamental issues—we have been open and honest about that—and that has not suddenly changed. But what we agree about is very important. We agree that this country is in a huge mess. We agree that this country needs stable government to start to turn it round, and we agree that the only conceivable combination that has the numbers to work is the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives working together. We also agree that the prime task is to start to tackle the deficit before it overwhelms us.

Many Labour Members still think that it is wrong to reduce public spending to reduce the deficit. Some of them mistakenly tell us that if we cut public spending—by £6.2 billion, to pluck a recent figure out of the air—it will take £6.2 billion out of the economy and will therefore help to collapse the economy further. The Labour party should understand that every £1 that is spent and borrowed by the Government has to come from the private sector. We are not printing money any more—that was the Labour idea for a year and even they agree that we cannot continue to do that. So every £1 that we need to borrow this year has to come from the private sector—from a company or individual who will lend it to the Government, but if they lend it to the Government, they cannot spend it or use it themselves. So it is not taking money out of the economy: it is just saying that we need a better balance in the economy.

If we do not get a private sector-led recovery, we will not cure the deficit, we will not prop up and develop the public services, and we will not have the increase in the tax revenues that we need to make a success of our large and expensive public sector. The only way out of this deficit crisis is a strong, private sector-led recovery.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend has spent many years in the private sector. Having also studied efficiency savings in the public sector, does he agree that £6 billion—or 1%—is just a start, and that huge gains could possibly be made, especially in IT projects and the general management of Whitehall?

[Mr Redwood]

I entirely agree. I have in the past been actively involved in British industry, and 3% per annum efficiency gains is a normal target. It is not done by undermining the product, reducing its quality or providing the customer with a worse service: it is done while giving customers a better service and raising the quality of the product, through technology, training and energising and motivating the work force through reward and incentive. We need to do that in the public sector now, on a large scale, because we have had 10 wasted years in which the Government made no progress and put too much money in without asking for enough back—doing too little for too much. We now need to create a public sector that does more for less in the important areas such as health and education, and does less for less in areas such as ID cards and the authoritarian state that Labour introduced.

We are meeting at a time of grave crisis for our European neighbours in the euro area. As one who campaigned strenuously and volubly against the United Kingdom joining the euro, I take no great pleasure in saying that all the things that we thought could go wrong with the euro are now unfortunately doing so, even without this country. I am very proud of all those who joined us in that campaign and kept sterling out. It is the one thing that the Government most recently ejected from office got right—they managed to stay out of the euro. That was a very sensible judgment on which I always congratulated them and backed them at the time. Had Britain gone into the euro, the state of British public finances and the different nature of the British economy and its founder currency, sterling, would by now have shattered the euro. Our great contribution to euroland unity was keeping our currency out, and I think that I could now find many German and French people and experts who would agree that we have made their problem a lot easier by not being in the euro.

When we used to say, “Beware of Greece! That is why we need to control our deficit”, the previous Government were always keen to tell us, “Oh, but Greece is in a totally different position.” Well they were wrong in this sense: if we do the figures properly, we see that total borrowing in Greece, in relation to its economy, is no bigger than total borrowing by the UK Government in relation to our economy. Colleagues have set out endlessly that the true debt and liability of the state in Britain is £3 trillion, not just under £1 trillion, as the previous Government used to say. Furthermore, our deficit is every bit as big as Greece’s, as we know from the awful figures that we have seen. So in that sense, we are just like Greece, and if the markets have got to the point with Greece where they are saying, “We will not carry on lending you money, because we think that you have over-borrowed”, we could get to that point in the United Kingdom too. It is that argument that has brought several Liberal Democrats round to our way of thinking, which is that we need urgent action. During the election we saw the Greek crisis being enacted at the same time as we were talking to electors, making it clear how dangerous the situation was.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has held these views for as long as I have been in the House, but the Prime Minister made it clear, after he met Chancellor Merkel, that it is in this country’s interests that the euro succeeds. It might well be that we do not join in the next five years, but we want it to succeed. Does he agree?

[Mr Redwood]

Of course, and I said that it came as no pleasure to me to say that unfortunately what we saw as the failings of the euro are now coming true. I was going to deal with the right hon. Gentleman’s point: it is in Britain’s interest to try to tackle the problems with our eurozone friends in a way that does not penalise this country. They are, of course, an important trading bloc in the world and an important market for ourselves.

I would like to finish my earlier point, however. There is a very important difference between the United Kingdom and Greece: whereas when Greece needs to borrow a lot of money, it cannot print the money to do so, and whereas when Greece wants, or has, to repay the money, it cannot devalue the currency to do so, the United Kingdom can do, and has done, both on a heroic scale. The reason we have not yet got into the Greek situation is that the whole of last year’s massive borrowing requirement was simply printed. The money was printed and injected through the banks into the public sector, so that we avoided the market pressures that Greece experienced. Greece could not do that because she shares a currency managed by the European Central Bank. The previous Government presided over a devaluation of the currency of about a quarter, so, although we will obviously not renege on our debts, the previous Government reneged on them by the back door, saying to all the foreign holders of those debts, “You will only get back three quarters of your money or interest.”

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

Surely if the Greeks had the drachma, which was valued at much less than the overvalued—from their point of view—euro, they would be able to stimulate the economy, and many of us could perhaps go there in the summer and help them to do it.

[Mr Redwood]

Indeed, and even in this new possible age of austerity, and even with a September sitting, I am sure that it would be possible to fit in a visit to Greece. That is exactly the kind of help that the Greek economy needs, and it would be much more attractive if they had a devaluing drachma—so that we could buy ouzo rather more cheaply. So my hon. Friend’s point is, of course, absolutely correct.

There are these very important differences, therefore, but the message to Britain has to be that we cannot go on printing and devaluing ad infinitum. There comes a point where the markets pull the rug from under us and say, “This is extreme—you cannot do this anymore.” There comes a point where we will be effectively reneging on our debts, because we will be devaluing the currency in which we are repaying them by so much.

That is why I so strongly welcome the clear response of the coalition Government to put at the top of the Queen’s Speech the need to take action to tackle the deficit, and why I think that they are right to have three phases. We saw the first phase on Monday—the down payment of £5.7 billion net—and we will then have the emergency Budget, which I hope will include some guidance on how we are going to get the deficit down in the medium term. We will then have the really important work, in the autumn, when the Government have had time to do the full-scale public spending review that the previous Government ducked out of and declined to do at the appropriate time. We will then be able see the proper trajectory for spending, which will be important for curbing the deficit.

I want to see the euro stabilised. However, it will be difficult to do that, because it was not wise, as many of us said at the time, to include Portugal, Spain, Ireland and Greece in the euro area. The euro works fine for France, Germany, Benelux and Austria, but it is difficult to get it to work for such a diverse grouping. However, the United Kingdom Government have to allow the euroland members to take more direct power over the euroland economies, because a single currency cannot work unless there is a single budgetary policy and controls over the amount that those countries borrow. They are all borrowing in the same currency. It is like sharing a bank account with the neighbours, where we need to control how much the neighbours spend, otherwise there will be an awful shock when we see how they have flexed the credit card and the overdraft. We need to let those countries have such power, so I hope that the Government will offer advice and assistance.

I would like us to get some powers back for ourselves, at the same time that more powers are being taken for the centre. However, it would be quite wrong of Britain to be obstinate and say that the centre should not have those powers. It is in our interests that the euro should work, and the only way that a currency union can work is if there is centrally controlled budgetary discipline and central agreement on how many euros are printed—some more will probably need to be printed now—in order to get out of this mess and get reflation going in those economies.

However, I am, of course, much more concerned about the prosperity of this country. I am conscious that although we need to control the deficit and take the measures that I and others have often argued for, we are not going to get out of this mess unless we have the strong private sector recovery that I and others are now referring to. I would therefore say to the coalition Government that they need to spend as much time on regulation, tax and other matters that affect the rate of growth of the private sector economy as they spend on curbing the spending problems in the public sector. The two need to go together. It is not a good idea simply to cut the public sector, if we do not create the conditions for strong and good growth in the private sector.

Let us take the sensitive issue of tax. I have been doing a little research on the topic of capital gains tax. I share the Liberal Democrat and Conservative coalition Members’ wish to raise more money from capital gains tax. That might come as a shock to many of my parliamentary colleagues, but in this situation we need to tax the rich more. They have more money and we need more money to come into the Treasury; we need to tax the rich more. However, the result of my researches shows that the way to get more money out of capital gains tax is to lower the rate. The figures are quite dramatic, although it is easier to see the effect in the United States of America than in the United Kingdom, because there have not been so many fiddles and changes in the way that capital gains tax is levied there as we have had here. We have had indexation, business relief and all sorts of complications, although the British series, as adjusted, seems to bear out the same case.

In America in the early 1980s, there was a period of cutting capital gains tax rates, down to 20%. Capital gains tax revenues hit a massive high in 1986, on the back of the lower, 20% rate. The Americans spent the next part of the 1980s hiking up capital gains tax, from 20% to, I think, 33%, and the revenues collapsed, but they did not get the idea. However, in the ’90s they returned to a more common-sense policy and the revenues picked up again. By the 2000s, the Americans decided that even 20% was a bit high for maximising the revenue, so they took the rate down to 15%, which is where it is now, and revenue surged. The 15% rate seems to be much nearer the optimum, producing far more tax from the rich in the United States than 20, 28 or 34% produced.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is giving a masterclass in economics that, sadly, the Opposition failed to listen to in all their years of taking us to this current low ebb. Is he sure, however, that when the rates of capital gains tax are lowered, people will not simply manufacture a way of turning income into a capital gain, in order to avoid taxation elsewhere? If that were to happen, the gain might not be entirely real.

[Mr Redwood]

Those periods were also periods of surging income tax receipts, which demonstrates that this is good for enterprise, profits and jobs. We need more profits, more savings, more investment and more jobs. If we tax things more lightly, we get more of them. If we tax them more heavily, we get less of them. The enthusiasts for high taxes in this House have always said, “We must put up the taxes on petrol to stop people driving so much, and we must put up the taxes on smoking to stop people smoking so much.” So, presumably, putting up the taxes on enterprise will stop people being so enterprising. That must be the logic.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con)]

I am enjoying my right hon. Friend’s contribution. Did not Margaret Thatcher prove this point when she was Prime Minister? By reducing the level of tax on the top earners, she increased the amount of money that flew into the Exchequer.

[Mr Redwood]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us of the great lady; she was a great Prime Minister. I not sure, however, that that is quite the model we need to persuade those on the Front Bench of a coalition Government. That is why I am drawing on more modern and foreign examples. My right hon. and hon. Friends will understand that we need good friends, because we must win this argument for the sake of our country’s prosperity.

I know a number of people whom I describe as entrepreneurs on strike. They have been very successful in business and they are now in their late 40s and 50s. Many of us would feel that they were still quite young—[Interruption.] They are also very energetic, as some of us are. They are on strike at the moment, however. They have loads of money in the bank or in a portfolio, but they do not want to commit it to a new business in Britain because they find the atmosphere here too hostile. They think that there are too many regulations and controls, which they find too burdensome. They also find the tax structure too uncertain. They feel that, if they are going to venture their money and work 12 to 14 hours a day to break in a new company and make it a success, they do not want to be paying 40 to 50% tax after five years if the company is working. They know that the Treasury will not be sending them half their losses if the business has not worked, and they feel that it is easier not to bother. They are saying, “I’ve got enough money, I can live quite comfortably, and I’m on strike.” Hon. Members might dislike strikes, as I do, but we have to work alongside them and with those entrepreneurs. This proves the point that if we want to stop something, we tax it. Please, Government, do not stop enterprise, venturing and new developments.

That brings me to my final main point, colleagues will be pleased to know. It relates to an excellent Bill proposed in the Queen’s Speech, which has been championed by my new friend, the Deputy Prime Minister: the great repeal Bill. I was delighted to learn that this was a Liberal Democrat idea. I cannot remember how many times I have urged that this House introduce a great repeal Bill, but Liberal Democrat ideas are not always wrong and I am delighted to give them ownership of this one, as long as they will do one thing for me. That is that they should work with us to make it a really good repeal Bill.

There are many things that we need to repeal. I shall not go on about them at huge length, because other colleagues wish to speak. I have sent the Deputy Prime Minister 27 proposals for the great repeal Bill, and they are also on that well-known website, johnredwood.com—I hope that I am permitted a commercial in this hallowed Chamber. If colleagues think it a good idea, they too should write to the Deputy Prime Minister with their pet ideas for the great repeal Bill. We do not want Ministers to come to the Dispatch Box with half a dozen perfectly good ideas, and then to say, “Well, we had a consultation, but nobody had anything else that they wanted knocked out.” I am sure that colleagues have their own ideas, and they should please put them in. If they do not, I do not mind them borrowing all the ones from my website. I do not expect any praise or attribution. They can even put in their letters that they do not like me, or perhaps that they agree with me. They can put in whatever they wish, if they think that it will help to get their message across. We need to bombard the Government with as many ideas as possible while they are listening and trying to construct the great repeal Bill.

We need to get costs off the back of British business. It is not easy to cut taxes as much as I would like—because the Government will not believe all my good news on how that would raise revenues—so we need also to cut the regulatory costs on business, so that more people can be persuaded that it is worth while to work. Our country is disfigured by 6 million people of working age who do not have a job. Some of them are chronically disabled and very ill; we all wish them any speedy recovery they can get and we wish to send them as much money as we can so that they can have a reasonably comfortable life. Most of the 6 million are not in that category, however, so it must be a high priority for this Government to use whatever means they can to get them back to work, which requires a strong and vibrant private sector for them to find jobs on offer. That is the central task.

If this Parliament masters the deficit before it demolishes us, if this Parliament gives hope to 6 million people out of work and if this Parliament creates an enterprising and fast-growing private sector economy, it will deserve to be well rewarded by the electorate in five years’ time or whenever the end comes.

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

It might help the House, and particularly Members seeking to catch your eye this evening, if you instructed the Treasury Bench Members to make available an 82-page document, which is not in the Library and not in the Vote Office, but is available in the Press Gallery. I think you hold my view that this House should be the first to receive information. A great deal of detailed information is in the document, some of which is available on the Government website, but Members seeking to catch your eye in this Chamber cannot gain access to that website. It would therefore be incredibly useful if every Member could have access to this document.