Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Clearly, since last year’s convergence programme debate there has been a momentous change in the UK’s relationship with the European Union. The article 50 process is now under way and the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. There cannot, as some suggest, be any turning back from that. In accordance with the outcome of the referendum, we are leaving the European Union and will make our own decisions, take control of the things that matter to us and seize every opportunity to build a stronger and fairer Britain.

Given our decision to leave, some Members might find it odd that we are debating the UK’s convergence programme here today. It is right that we should do so, however, because we continue to exercise our full membership of the European Union until our exit and because to do so is a legal requirement that we must take seriously. I should, however, remind the House that the content of the convergence programme is drawn from the Government’s assessment of the UK’s economic and budgetary position. This assessment is based on the spring Budget report and the Office for Budget Responsibility’s most recent economic and fiscal outlook. It is that content, rather than the convergence programme itself, that requires the approval of the House.

I should also remind the House that although the UK participates in the stability and growth pact, which requires convergence programmes to be submitted, we are required—by virtue of our protocol to the treaty opting out of the euro—only to endeavour to avoid excessive deficits. The UK cannot be subject to any action or sanctions as a result of our participation.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

On that point, would my right hon. Friend like to comment on how much influence he thinks the convergence criteria and the deficit reduction requirements have had on successive UK Governments to drive more austerity and cuts?

[Mr Gauke]

In the seven years that I have been a Treasury Minister, I have not noticed the convergence programme having an influence on the decisions that we have taken. We have taken decisions to reduce the deficit because we believe that that is in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom, rather than because of any requirements under the EU treaties.

Let me provide a brief overview of the information that we will set out in the UK’s convergence programme. Members should note that this does not represent new information; rather, it captures the Government’s assessment of the UK’s medium-term economic and budgetary position, as we set out in the spring Budget. It is fair to say that in March 2017, we were in a better position economically than many had predicted. Growth in the second half of 2016 was stronger than the OBR had anticipated in the autumn statement. In fact, the UK economy grew faster last year than most other advanced major economies, and employment remains at a record high. So, following a period of robust economic growth, record employment and a falling deficit, we sought to safeguard that economic stability in the Budget. That is particularly important as we prepare our country to leave the European Union.

The OBR forecasts that business investment will remain subdued as we begin the period of negotiation with our EU friends and partners, and it continues to judge that, in the medium term, growth will slow due to weaker growth in consumer demand as a consequence of a rise in inflation. Accordingly, putting the public finances in good order will remain vital for the foreseeable future, and all the more so given that the deficit remains too high and that there is a range of potential risks in the global economy. That is why we are getting ourselves into a position of readiness to handle difficulties of any kind that might come our way. Our fiscal rules, which enable us to do that, strike the right balance between reducing the deficit, maintaining flexibility and investing for the long term.

Overall public sector net borrowing as a percentage of GDP is predicted to fall from 3.8% last year to 2.6% this year. This means that we are forecast to meet our 3% stability and growth pact target this year for the first time in almost a decade. Borrowing is forecast to be 2.9% in 2017-18 and then to fall to 1.9% in 2018-19 before reaching 0.7% in 2021-22, which will be its lowest level in two decades. The economic forecasts are broadly unchanged since the autumn, but the OBR has substantially revised down its short-term forecast for public sector net borrowing. As a consequence, we are within sight of bringing to a halt the increase in the national debt as a proportion of GDP. Debt is forecast to peak at 88.8% of GDP in 2017-18, and then to fall in subsequent years.

[John Redwood]

On that point, it is important to remind the House that £435 billion of the debt is now owned by the state, so the state owes the money to itself, meaning that it is not a debt in any normal sense.

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. Friend is correct about where the debt is owed, but as a country we must none the less be wary of a debt that is high by recent historical standards. It is right that we show determination to set out a plan for how the debt to GDP ratio can be reduced to ensure that the UK is in a more resilient place to absorb the shocks to our economy and to the public finances that occur from time to time.

Beyond our fiscal rules to protect the public purse and prepare our economy, the Budget also set out a wide range of things that this Government will be doing to invest in our future. That includes giving our children the chance to go to a good or outstanding school that sets them up to succeed; helping young people across the country get the skills they need for the high-paid, high-skilled jobs of the future; and investing in cutting-edge technology and innovation, so that Britain continues to be at the forefront of the global technology revolution—three things that will be at the heart of our efforts finally to address the country’s long-standing productivity challenges.

The Budget also promised greater support for our social care system, with substantial additional funding so that people get the care they deserve as they grow older. The Budget works to strengthen our public services over the long term, too, in our determination to bring down the deficit and get the UK back to living within its means, and to fund our public services for the long term through a fair and sustainable tax system. The spring Budget, therefore, was one that made the most of the opportunities ahead by laying the foundations of a stronger, fairer and better Britain.

Following the House’s approval of the economic and budgetary assessment that forms the basis of the convergence programme, the Government will submit the convergence programme to the Council of the European Union and the European Commission, with recommendations expected from the Commission in May. The submission of convergence programmes by non-euro area member states, and stability programmes by euro area member states, also provides a useful framework for co-ordinating fiscal policies. A degree of fiscal policy co-ordination across countries can be beneficial to ensure a stable global economy, which is in the UK’s national interest.

The UK has always taken part in international mechanisms for policy co-ordination, such as the G7, the G20 and the OECD. Although we are leaving the EU, we will of course continue to have a deep interest in the economic stability and prosperity of our European friends and neighbours, so we will continue to play our part in this process while we remain an EU member and in other international policy co-ordination processes once we have left the EU.

The Government are committed to ensuring that we act in full accordance with section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993, and that this House approves the economic and budgetary assessment that forms the basis of the convergence programme.

[Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)]

We find ourselves in a strange position. We are debating a motion to approve the Government’s programme for convergence with the EU at the start of an election campaign in the context of leaving the EU. That is an unusual set of circumstances, to say the least. Some see it as almost theological. There will no longer be a requirement for convergence, and the Conservatives have no idea how our economy might work post-Brexit, other than their plan for a bargain-basement deregulated tax haven. It is a simple, if flawed and dangerous, plan regardless of the position that people took in the referendum.

A complete lack of vision from the Government means that no one can be confident about what our economy will look like in just two years’ time. Labour accepts the referendum result, which is why we did not frustrate the triggering of the article 50 negotiations, but we will never support the chaos of a Conservative plan for Brexit that will potentially put our economy in danger. That does not mean being a “saboteur”, as suggested in some newspapers today; it means doing the job that we were sent here to do. Wealth concentrated in the hands of a tiny super-rich elite and corporations treating us like a tax haven is not particularly good, and it is not what people voted for.

We have heard much in the debate over the past few months about taking back control. We heard time after time that we will take back control, but we should not take back control and put it in the hands of a group of plutocrats while leaving most people across the country worse off year after year. When we take back control, it has to be shared by everyone, not just a few.

A Labour Government would deliver a final deal that reflected Labour’s values, ensuring a strong and collaborative future relationship with the EU, which the Minister mentioned. We would defend people’s rights and protections, preventing the race to the bottom that is feared. There is a clear choice between a better future for the whole country under a Labour Government and a bargain-basement tax haven under the Conservatives.

The Brexit course set by the Prime Minister will have huge repercussions for our country and our economy. In 2016, the UK exported goods and services to the EU totalling £548 billion, with imports totalling £585 billion. The EU accounts for 44% of UK exports of goods and services, and 53% of imports. Despite the Government’s laid-back approach to trade with the EU, a hard Brexit puts much of those exports and EU imports at risk. Sterling has already dropped by nearly 20% against the dollar since the UK voted to leave the EU, becoming the world’s worst performing major currency in October 2016. Many economists now suspect that the pound may depreciate even further as negotiations inevitably deadlock and begin to flounder.

When the Conservatives came to office, they committed to balancing the books by 2015, and they broke that promise. It is unequivocally a promise broken. They then put the date back to 2019-20, and again it was not delivered. Here we are, days away from the Dissolution of Parliament, without the Government making as much progress on the deficit as they promised. The Chancellor regularly says that it is a rolling target, but there is no such thing. He either has a target or he does not.

Under this Government, debt as a percentage of GDP has continually risen and now stands at 85%. How can that be a sign of a healthy economy, notwithstanding that the Minister has indicated it will start to come down? GDP growth per capita under this Government has not once surpassed the pre-crisis trend of 2.3%. In fact, growth has been revised down for 2016, 2018 and, now, 2019 and 2020. Again, that is hardly the sign of a strong economy.

In seven years, the Conservatives have borrowed £750 billion, and I remind people time and again that that is more than all Labour Governments combined. Since 2010, 10 of the Government’s 14 Budgets and autumn statements have seen an increase in forecast borrowing, and their record on borrowing can be summed up in two words: missed targets. Make no mistake that the Conservatives are the party of borrowing. Is it any wonder that the Conservatives borrowed so much when the public finances each year have huge gaping holes? This year, we saw the Chancellor’s attempt to hit self-employed workers with a rise in national insurance contributions, and the Conservatives’ U-turn on that measure left a £2 billion black hole in the projected public finances. How can we rely on the Conservatives’ rosy assessment of the economy when we know that the sums do not add up?

That feeds into the wider problem with the public finances under the Tories. Children are beginning to sit in crumbling schools, and across the country people are waiting ever longer to be seen by professionals in the NHS, which is undergoing the worst crisis in its history. Why do we have that sorry state of affairs? Because the Conservatives have sacrificed the services that everyone uses just to pay for £70 billion of tax cuts for corporations and the super-rich over the next few years. The Government have presided over the slowest recovery since the 1920s, with both economic growth and average earnings growth downgraded yet again. Despite falling unemployment, workers are suffering the worst decade of pay in 70 years. Rising inflation is now outstripping wage growth.

The Government have done little to address the scandal of chronic low pay and insecure employment, which is reflective of an economy that is not working as they claim. So their promise of a £9 national minimum wage has drifted downwards, while inflation is increasing the cost of living for everyone.

The Government’s assessment of the economy makes no mention of the continued economic imbalance in respect of the devolved nations and the regions. We simply cannot continue to have such an unbalanced and unequal economy. That comes back to the point I made at the start about the disparity in regional economic growth, which I see in my region and in many others.

[John Redwood]

So how much extra tax should the Government impose next year to deal with the budget deficit the hon. Gentleman is worried about?

[Peter Dowd]

I am sure we will have that debate during the general election process.

As I mentioned, this Government have pledged to take back control from Brussels, but what about control for the millions of people who live outside the M25? How can this Government square their desire for less interference from Brussels with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government not batting an eyelid when banning local councils all over the country from charging £1 for fun runs in local parks? Is it really the job of the Secretary of State to micro-manage park budgets? Have we come to that? Have we come to a British Secretary of State telling local authorities, “You can’t charge these people £1, you can’t charge them 50p”? That is ludicrous, which is we why have to take back control, so that when control comes back to this country it is pushed down.

It is all the more bizarre that the Secretary of State has taken that position, given that both he and his predecessors have cut local government support by as much as 60% in some areas. Authorities have had not only huge cuts in their budgets, but interference on piddling amounts of money, such as £1 for park runs. It is pretty pathetic.

--- Later in debate ---

[Roger Mullin (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to make my final speech in the Commons before the general election. The electors of Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath will determine whether I return to make any speeches here in future.

I was intrigued by and enjoyed the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), who pointed out that it is rather strange to be debating this subject: we are facing being dragged out of the European Union, yet we are discussing convergence. I knew this would be a tremendously popular debate—we need only to look around the full Benches to see how popular it is—so I took a leaf out of the Leader of the Opposition’s book and tweeted that I was going to be speaking on this important topic, in the hope that I would get the equivalent of “Mary from Rochdale” letting me know the key points I should raise. Only one person replied with a suggestion of what I should include in my speech, and it was: “Can you say hello to my Auntie Sadie in Balloch?” I could not possibly do that in a speech of such importance, but perhaps that clarifies how many of the things we debate in this House are very technical and difficult for the public to engage in. On a serious note, they are none the less very important.

The Minister talked about the OBR forecasts. Yesterday, I showed great prescience—or lack of it. Scott started to work for me on the day that the general election was declared. I gave him one task to prepare for this speech: I asked him to contact the Library and to find out how many independent evaluations had ever been done of the Treasury or OBR models of the UK economy. This morning, the Library staff got back to say that they could not find that any such evaluations had ever been undertaken. That is perhaps not surprising when we see some of the results of those models.

In following up, I asked the Library staff to look into how the OBR model was described by the OBR. They directed me to the OBR’s website, on which we find the wonderful statement that much of its model is based not on hard fact but on the judgment of those who use it. Different people might get incredibly different results using the same model. There will come a time when Governments of whatever shade are going to have to consider the way in which we understand and model the economy, and how far we can ever rely on forecasts of the type the House has been receiving for a good number of years.

This could obviously be a fairly wide-ranging debate but, thinking about the future, I thought I would make one or two remarks about issues that will still need to be addressed when we have exited the European Union. Exiting itself will not contribute anything; it will require the will of Government to do something. The Minister rightly mentioned the importance of business investment. Last year, the House held a debate on quantitative easing —I seem to recall that the hon. Member for Bootle took part in it—that I think was slightly less popular, in terms of the numbers taking part, than this debate. None the less, it was interesting that so many of those who spoke in that debate talked about the problem that QE had created for investment. The assumption from the original essay by Friedman in 1969 was that introducing QE would lead to a rise in asset prices, the consequence of which would be to increase confidence in business and a significant increase in investment. We know that that has not happened, despite well over £600 billion of QE being introduced. It would be interesting to know how the Government, or the future Government, will tackle the rewinding of QE.

In recent days, senior bankers have made some very intemperate remarks about the business sector. I wish to point to one that was made just two days ago in the Daily Express by a senior executive from the Royal Bank of Scotland. He described as a “bunch of chancers” a group of small and medium-sized enterprises that were pursuing some reconciliation of the problems they experienced from the Global Restructuring Group and the like. Can Members imagine any other industry talking about its customers as a bunch of chancers? Apparently, those customers were called that because they may have the audacity to go to the courts to seek redress. If Members look at the RBS accounts, they will see that RBS has tripled the amount of money that it has set aside for the hiring of lawyers to defend cases—I see a Member nodding. It expects to defend cases worth something in the order of £1 billion. Surely that says something about our banking culture which will need to be addressed.

One matter that I have been pursuing in this House is the issue of Scottish limited partnerships and other forms of limited partnerships that have been, particularly since 2008, subjected to use by international criminals, including, and perhaps particularly, those from eastern Europe, Ukraine, Russia and the like. The amounts involved now total many billions of pounds. About 10 days before recess, there was an urgent question on the latest money laundering scandal. When I questioned the Minister at the time, I pointed out that, at the heart of these scandals, lie these limited partnerships. Since 2008, 22,000 Scottish limited partnerships have been created. They are completely opaque; we have no idea who owns them. Many of them seek to operate in tax havens and to launder significant amounts of criminal assets.

[John Redwood]

Before he closes his remarks, do the hon. Gentleman and his party think that the EU is right to say that state debt should not be above 60% of GDP?

[Roger Mullin]

It is perfectly reasonable for the EU to make such a statement and to seek to have some control over debt. It is interesting to note that the Scottish Government can at least say today, all these years after the Scottish Parliament was created, that they have absolutely no debt. That is certainly something that this Government cannot claim.

Regardless of whether we were going to be in or out of the EU, this country—the UK and all its member nations—would still face major economic challenges that require will and intelligence to address. Surely that is the message that we should all be taking to our constituents as we face the future.

Autumn Statement

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hammond]

I am not responsible for remarks that may or may not have been made during political campaigns. The British people made a decision to leave the European Union, and we must respect that decision. If we are to make a success of this process and if we are going to ensure the success of the British economy in the future, we must move on and not repeat this sterile debate over and over again. We must focus our attention on building an economy that is match-fit for the future and that will enable us to deliver high living standards as we make our way in the world.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

As someone who is much more optimistic about the UK economy’s prospects under the Chancellor’s stewardship than the OBR usually is, I welcome the increased OBR forecast for this year—a faster rate of growth than in its pre-vote forecast. I also welcome its recognition that there will be no post-vote winter recession, as was forecast by some. Does the Chancellor agree that the OBR is probably still quite wrong about 2017? Its forecast is too low, its borrowing forecast is far too high, and we will get good access to the single market once we are out of the EU.

[Mr Hammond]

I hope that my right hon. Friend is right on that last point, which will of course be our objective. I am grateful to him for his implicit confidence in my stewardship. I am well aware of his views, which are, as always, long standing and utterly consistent. However, it is not my job to opine on the report that the OBR has made by statute to Parliament; it is my job to respond to it. That is what I have done today. Obviously, economic forecasting is not a precise science, and I absolutely recognise, as would the OBR, that individual Members will have their own views on the likely future trajectory of our economy. It is probably worth mentioning that the OBR specifically says in its report that there is an unusually high degree of uncertainty in its forecasts because of the unusual circumstances.

Finance Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

In this final debate, there is an array of amendments and new clauses to consider across a wide range of subjects. I am sure that we will cover a great deal of ground.

Let me first outline briefly the Government amendments, starting with Government new clause 9. To ensure fairness in the tax system, new clause 9 allows for the exemption from income tax of supplementary benefit payments funded by the Northern Ireland Executive. Government amendments 132 to 134 deal with disguised remuneration and Government amendment 139 deals with aqua methanol. Amendments 132 to 134 change the date for withdrawing a relief on returns arising from disguised remuneration for those who have not settled tax due to 1 April 2017, while amendment 139 changes the date on which the new aqua methanol duty rate comes into force to 14 November.

Government amendments 135, 146 to 148 and 138 concern venture capital trusts, the lifetime allowance and dividends respectively. They make changes to ensure that these policies work as intended.

Let me deal with the new clauses and amendments tabled by the Opposition. New clause 15, tabled by the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) and her colleagues is designed to prevent the use of secondary legislation to alter the rate of VAT applied to the installation of energy-saving materials. Since 2001, the UK has applied the 5% reduced rate of VAT to the installation of 11 different types of energy-saving materials. That reduced rate remains in place and is unchanged. The European Court of Justice ruled last year that the UK had interpreted VAT law too broadly. Following that judgment, the Government published a consultation on this particularly complex issue, and we are considering the responses. While this new clause is designed to prevent the use of secondary legislation to alter the rate of VAT applied to the installation of energy-saving materials, the tax lock legislated for by this Government already achieves the same effect. Indeed, it goes further.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that, now we are leaving the EU, we would have no intention of raising VAT to that rate? I hope that we will scrap it altogether.

[Jane Ellison]

As the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU said yesterday in his responses to the lengthy statement, those are all matters that will be looked at. He confirmed that he is indeed looking at it, as is the Treasury.

We feel that the tax lock goes further by preventing the use of secondary legislation to vary the scope of any reduced or zero rate. In effect, the new clause would serve no purpose except to duplicate existing legislation.

New clause 3 on the marriage allowance would place a legal requirement on the Government to carry out a review. Although I am sympathetic and have discussed the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and others who support the new clause, I hope to be able to show that such a report is unnecessary and to address some of these concerns.

Let me reiterate that the Government remain committed to recognising marriage in the tax system and to ensuring that the marriage allowance is delivered successfully. As hon. Members will be aware, take-up of this policy was initially lower than expected, but the Government have taken decisive action to change that. In spring this year, HMRC ran a successful marketing campaign to help raise awareness among eligible families, and the results were quite dramatic. Daily applications increased by a factor of seven between November 2015 and March 2016. Next month, HMRC will receive its 1 millionth successful marriage allowance application.

We are going even further. HMRC will launch a more ambitious campaign to raise awareness next month to help to continue the momentum. The Government have also assessed the distributional impact of the policy, which I know is a matter of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. We found that a quarter of those who will benefit are households with children, and most of the benefit from the marriage allowance will go to those in the bottom half of the income distribution scale. I understand that my hon. Friend will want to make more points about this issue in his contribution. I will seek to respond, briefly if I can, at the end.

My hon. Friend has also tabled new clause 2, which proposes a review of the impact of the rate of duty charged on sparkling cider of an alcohol strength exceeding 5.5%. The concerns that he raises—he has raised them before—are important, and the Government will continue to tackle alcohol problems as a driver of crime and support people to stay healthy, building on the alcohol strategy of 2012. The Government are aware that some ciders can be associated with alcohol harm and we have already taken action. Since 2010, for example, we have required drinks to contain a minimum of 35% apple or pear juice to be defined as cider, which is designed to increase the cost of the cheap white ciders.

From my previous role as a public health Minister, I am obviously aware of the concerns about alcohol harm. Further changes to alcohol policy would need sufficiently to target cheap drinks associated with these harms, without of course penalising responsible drinkers. The Treasury is always willing to consider any evidence about how these products should be taxed. Although I do not think a legislative requirement for a review is necessary, I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s contribution to the debate.

Amendments 180 to 182 deal with the Office of Tax Simplification. The amendments, tabled by the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), would require appointments to or dismissals from the position of the OTS chair to be subject to the consent of the Treasury Select Committee. The OTS provides the Chancellor with independent advice on simplifying the tax system. As I alluded to in the last part of the previous debate, to ensure that the OTS continues its important work, the Government are putting it on a permanent statutory footing and increasing its powers. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie), the hon. Member for Ilford North, whom I see in his place, and other members of the Treasury Select Committee for their commitment to safeguarding the independence of bodies within government and to increasing their transparency. The Government’s view is that there is a balance between ensuring that there is robust scrutiny and doing so in a way that is proportionate to the function of the OTS.

Having considered the representations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester and the hon. Member for Ilford North, the Government will ensure that the Treasury Committee is able to hold hearings with future OTS chair candidates before their appointments are formalised, and to put appointments to a vote in the House. We believe that those arrangements should be a permanent method of appointment of future OTS chairs. I do not think there is any justification for going further and legislating for a power of veto, which is what the amendments would do. I hope that members of the Treasury Committee will welcome the arrangements that I have outlined, and I invite them not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rob Marris]

I quite agree with the hon. Lady. Sadly, I am unlikely ever to be a Minister, but I am hoping that the Minister will stand up this afternoon and say, “The hon. Member for Aberdeen North has made a jolly good point.” She has said that the Government keep all policies under review all the time, so let us have the transparency. I salute what the Government did for transparency yesterday in accepting amendment 145, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). I urge them to go that bit further today by publishing the evidence that they have and by marshalling more evidence and disclosing it. They must have the courage to seriously go for simplification, which would be better for business and employment in this country, even though there would be a cost to be borne by society in the form of less nuanced decision making and systems becoming more monochromatic and rough and ready. Some of that would of course rebound on Members of the House, because we would get constituents writing to us saying, “I have a particularly nuanced situation here, and you guys have made all these laws that are a bit monochromatic and do not help me.” We have to have the guts to say that that is a price worth paying, and as legislators we should be prepared to do so.

[John Redwood]

I had hoped to clear up my point in an earlier intervention on the Minister, but I fear that I was not happy with her answer so I shall try again and extend my case a little on the important matter of VAT on energy-saving materials. That is the principal issue at stake in new clause 15. As I was trying to explain to the Minister, many of us feel that it would be quite wrong to increase VAT on energy-saving materials, given that the House decided to choose the lowest rate that we are allowed to impose under European Union law. A case was then lost in the European Court, and the Government have wisely been undertaking a very long consultation into how they might implement this ill-conceived and unwanted judgment. The longer they consider it, the better, and the sooner we get out of the European Union, the sooner we can bring the whole charade to a happy end.

To many of us, this illustrates exactly what was wrong with our membership of the European Union, and this is something that we can offer to our constituents as we come out. They voted to leave and to take back control of their laws. That includes their laws over taxes. During the campaign, we on the leave side made a great deal of how we wanted to scrap VAT on energy-saving materials. Like many people in this House, we believe that we could do much more to save and conserve energy and to raise fuel efficiency, and if we did not tax those materials, perhaps they would be a bit cheaper for people. That would send a clear message that this was something that we believed in.

I urge the Minister to go as far as she can in saying that this Government have absolutely no wish to put up VAT on energy-saving materials, and that they would not do so if they were completely free to make their own tax decisions. I would love her to go a bit further—this might be asking quite a lot—and say that once we are free of the European Union requirements, we will be scrapping VAT on energy-saving materials altogether. It is not a huge money-spinner for the Government, and its abolition would send a very good message. It would particularly help people struggling in fuel poverty, who find energy-saving materials expensive. The extra VAT on them is far from helpful.

The Minister suggested to me that the Brexit Secretary was dealing with this matter, but I can assure her that he is not. He made a clear statement on these matters in the House yesterday and wisely told us—I repeat this for the benefit of those who did not hear him—that it is his role to advise and work with the Prime Minister to get our powers back. His job is to ensure that this House and all of us can once again settle the United Kingdom’s taxes without having to accept the European Union’s judgments and overrides. However, it will be for Treasury Ministers and the wider Cabinet to recommend how we use those wider and new powers and to bring to the House their proposals once they are free to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

A great deal has happened politically since the March Budget and during the passage of the Finance Bill. Therefore, on Third Reading, when we are invited to consider the Bill in the round, we should ask ourselves how this set of composite tax measures and forecasts for revenues and budget deficits fits into what the Bank of England thinks is a rather revised picture today, although its gloom is probably exaggerated.

We also had a very significant event from the Government themselves over the summer recess, which has not been reported to this House or debated in this House, but which should not go without comment: the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave his consent for the creation of up to £170 billion of additional money and for the Bank of England to buy large quantities of Government debt and substantial quantities of corporate debt, making available a lot of cheaper money to the banks. As a result of that needless monetary relaxation—there was absolutely no evidence at the time that the economy had suffered an output or retail sales shock in the way that the Bank foolishly thought was happening—we see that interest rates have been driven down. In particular, longer-term interest rates, which are the Government’s price of borrowing, have been driven down, and so we now must imagine that the Budget arithmetic has changed quite a lot in a very favourable direction, as there is now presumably a substantial reduction in the forecast interest rate costs for Her Majesty’s Government over the balance of this year and into the next financial year, assuming that those programmes of aggressive bond buying continue to depress the rates in the way that is clearly planned.

At some point the Government need to explain why they endorsed the Bank of England’s very aberrant view. The Government’s forecasts for the economy, which are the thought behind this perfectly sensible Budget that we are in the process of approving, look forward to the UK economy growing by 2% this year and by 2.2% next year. The Bank of England now says that the British economy will grow by only 0.8% next year. I have no idea why the Bank thinks that, but it would of course change the arithmetic, and instead of our welcoming this Budget with an even smaller deficit, because of yield compression and cheaper borrowing, we should be worrying at this juncture about the shortfall in revenues next year on the back of a much-revised Bank of England forecast. Clearly revenues will be down by quite a lot next year if growth is to be only 0.8% rather than the 2.2% that was the premise of this Budget.

I fully support the Treasury’s March view. It is extremely likely that the British economy will grow by 2.2%. I do not have my own model but I understand how the Treasury model works and I do not think that the underlying assumptions behind the model for the March forecast were unrealistic. I do not think that they have fundamentally changed as a result of the events of the summer, with, perhaps, the one exception that if the Bank perseveres with injecting anything like £170 billion into the economy, growth could be even better than the Government were expecting, because that is a far bigger monetary stimulus than they clearly had in mind when they constructed the March Budget.

The Bank of England needs to be careful. One of the curious things about the timing of its decision was that it made that announcement before we saw the real economy figures for the first eight weeks after the Brexit vote. Those figures turned out to be perfectly reasonable. They were not negative in the way that the Bank had thought. The Bank also made the injection of money just after some very important figures came out, ones that it had obviously read in a different way from me.

If we read the money supply growth figures and credit growth figures for the second quarter of the current calendar year, we will see that they started to accelerate. We had pretty steady 5% growth for quite a long period, which was giving us a combination of low or no inflation and 2% or so growth, but then those figures suddenly accelerated to around 7% or 8%. It is therefore even more bizarre that, on the back of those numbers, the Bank of England should suddenly decide to try to pump so much money into the economy, at a point where it looked as if the commercial banking system was sufficiently strong and confidence had returned sufficiently to mean an even faster rate of money growth than the one that was achieving 2% growth overall.

I am not suggesting that we need to drop this Budget because of that very large monetary stimulus, but the House should be aware that a very large monetary stimulus has been added at exactly a point where we had a perfectly sensible Budget based on perfectly sensible assumptions. The Government also need to be very careful before authorising any further monetary stimulus given what look like perfectly satisfactory numbers.

How could the Bank be that wrong—it is quite difficult to understand—and why did the Government endorse its strange interpretation? It says two things. It says that a Brexit vote could damage trade. Well, the one thing we seem to know from the very relaxed timetable the Government are proposing for getting us out of the EU is that in all probability we are going to be trading under existing single market arrangements this year and next year. There will not, therefore, be any damage to trade. I do not think there will be any damage to trade when we are out, but we are going to be trading under the current arrangements for the forecast period, so it is very difficult to see why we would knock anything off GDP because of trade. Indeed, we should be adding quite a lot in relation to trade, because clearly exports will rise quite a lot on the back of a much weaker pound.

The other thing it says is that there will be an effect on confidence. We have seen from recent surveys that there was a very short term hit to the confidence of big business executives who did not like the result of the referendum, but there was no hit to the confidence of consumers. They went out and spent more in the shops immediately after the Brexit vote than they were spending before. We saw, in the following month, that many senior company executives regained a lot of their lost confidence because they saw they were wrong and that the customers were returning to, or staying in, the shops. They are buying cars and new houses. Confidence has not collapsed, something the banks seemed to think would happen.

I urge those on the Treasury Bench to think about these matters extremely carefully. The very long procedure on the Finance Bill means that, in all probability, we are approving a Bill that was constructed in what the Bank of England thinks were very different economic times. I think the economic forecast and the economic times of March are very similar to the ones we should now accept, and I urge the Government to take that view. The House needs to note, if it is the view of the House, that on top of a Budget that has a reasonably relaxed fiscal stance compared with intentions a few years ago—something I am quite happy with—we now have a very large monetary injection. The Government need to be aware of what that might mean.

Finance Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making the powerful case that some SLPs are being used for criminal or money-laundering purposes. Those are serious crimes and they should be reported. Has he reported them? Is not this an enforcement issue?

[Roger Mullin]

It is certainly a very important issue, but I think it would be better if we could get the Government to carry out the kind of detailed scrutiny that would enable them to enact the necessary legislation. Their voice would be far more powerful than mine in this regard.

I should also like to pass comment on amendment 145, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), which we will certainly be supporting. I am sure that she will have much more to say about it in a moment. It is a modest amendment to encourage much-needed country-by-country reporting for corporations, and I look forward to hearing her remarks. She can be assured that her actions have the full support of Members on these Benches. Similarly, we hope that the Opposition will press new clause 13 to a vote. We also intend to support that proposal.

This whole section dealing with tax evasion is very important, and it is vital that the UK as a whole lives up to its responsibility to ensure that we do not get a name for encouraging tax dodgers. I want to mention the remarkable and brave journalist Roberto Saviano, who has been admired for exposing the murderous criminal underworld of the Italian mafia. In a recent article in The Daily Telegraph, he warned that the UK financial world was effectively allowing what he called “criminal capitalism” to thrive. Surely we must take steps today to ensure that that is not the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Flint]

I agree with my hon. Friend on that. I commend her work as the Chair of our Committee and the work she has done with other public accounts committees in other countries, because there is an appetite for doing more in this area and we are leading the way. We can do that from our House of Commons Committees, but we hope today that we can give some added muscle to the Government to lead the way in this important area, too.

I talked about the charities and organisations working in the development sphere, because I am seeking tax justice not only here, but for those developing countries that lose out too. I have said it before but it is worth saying again: if developing countries got their fair share of tax, it would vastly outstrip what is currently available through aid. The lack of tax transparency is one of the major stumbling blocks to their self-sufficiency. My thanks also go to the Tax Justice Network, Global Witness and the business-led Fair Tax Mark, as well as to tax experts Richard Murphy and Jolyon Maugham, QC, who have helped me to make the case and to get the wording right to amend legislation. This proposal demonstrates the widespread view that bolder measures to hold multinationals to account are necessary.

[John Redwood]

Is not the bigger issue: where should the profit be fairly struck? Where was the value added? Where did the work take place? Where is the intellectual property residing? Getting transparency is one thing, but we could still get transparency for an answer that we do not like.

[Caroline Flint]

There is a debate about where best to recoup the money from those who trade and the profits they make. Different options are available, but perhaps that is a wider debate for another day. The BEPS—Base Erosion and Profit Shifting—debate was partly about addressing that, but transparency has to be at the heart of all this, whatever system we set up to identify what is a fair contribution for business. I hope that my amendment will be supported and will be one small step forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

I do not intend to detain the House for an unduly lengthy period of time, because I know that everyone wants to get to bed before midnight. I want to set out why country-by-country reporting is so very important, and why the whole culture of tax avoidance by big business and multinationals is something that we cannot condone or tolerate.

People ask what is wrong with an organisation such as Apple organising its tax affairs to its best possible advantage. After all, is that not the principle of taxation—that there is no equity in taxation and that only the literal taxation rules should apply? However, my concern is that the conduct of Apple is unacceptable for three key reasons. If a big business organises its tax affairs so that it basically pays no tax whatsoever, then it is inevitably warping the free market, because it is getting an unfair tax advantage, or a tax advantage that gives it a competitive advantage over other enterprises that are paying tax on their profit. For me, that is a really serious issue.

The other issue with Apple in Ireland is that to have a special deal for one business that does not apply to everyone else is counter to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, which is that everyone should be treated the same—be they a cleaner at Apple or Apple itself. What is offensive is if a cleaner in the office is paying more in tax than the massive, profitable enterprise whose offices they are cleaning.

Let me continue with the case of Apple. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) made a powerful point. If it has created all this intellectual property, he asked what was wrong with its not being caught in the UK tax net. My answer is that that intellectual property was in fact created in Silicon Valley, but is the organisation paying tax in Silicon Valley? Is it paying tax in America? No, it is not. It has set up a clever structure. Early in its evolution as a business—some 10 or 20 years ago—it sold its outside American intellectual property rights for $1, or some other small sum, to a Bermuda company, which would then have a conduit through Ireland to invest across the rest of Europe.

The company then checks the box for US tax purposes in respect of everything below Bermuda so that, from the Internal Revenue Service’s point of view, it looks as though the Bermuda company is the trading company, and because it is a trading company and the only enterprise that there is for US tax purposes, it is not caught by subpart F of the controlled foreign companies regulations, meaning that no tax can be deemed to have to be repatriated to the United States. As a result, the Bermuda enterprise becomes a cash box for reinvestment across the European theatre. Therein lies the unfair competitive advantage.

[John Redwood]

I remind my hon. Friend that I did not mention the word “Apple” and I expressed no view on Apple’s tax affairs, one way or the other. I asked a question about how we as legislators globally can produce a system that is fair and sensible so that people know what companies should be paying. I have not studied Apple’s tax affairs in details so I would not presume to lecture either for or against what that company does.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I stand corrected by my right hon. Friend. It is not a question of Apple; it is a question of general US outbound tax planning. That is why country-by-country reporting matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, but we should also recognise, as I am sure he will, the progress that has been made in recent years to insist on those overseas territories moving into the 21st century so that their tax arrangements comply with what we would expect for international standards. In a globalised world, we must be clear that concerted international effort is needed to stop continued cross-border tax avoidance, evasion or plain old-fashioned aggressive but unscrupulous planning.

The UK Government have done more than any previous Government and more than most of our international allies and competitors to eradicate these practices, and they continue to do so, but of course more must be done and I welcome the reassurances we have heard from the Government that this remains a priority. I am pleased that the Government are now pursuing country-by-country reporting and that it will be discussed at the forthcoming G20 Finance Ministers meeting. This measure will by itself help to increase transparency across multinationals, supporting not only our tax authorities but, perhaps more importantly, those of the developing countries of which we have heard, which are almost literally being robbed of vital sources of income.

In conclusion, the Finance Bill and the amendments tabled to it include both pioneering and bold measures. It will ensure that taxes are paid and that everybody pays their fair share, and I look forward to supporting it this evening.

[John Redwood]

I remind the House that I have declared in the register of interests that I am a registered investment adviser, but obviously I am not speaking on their behalf in this debate.

It seems to me that there is common ground among all parties in this House that we need to collect a decent amount of tax revenue and that we want to ensure that those who are rich, particularly companies that seem to generate a lot of turnover and possibly profit, pay their fair share. We recognise, I think, that we have to operate in a global market. We are talking about what are usually large corporations that genuinely make different levels of profit and generate different amounts of turnover in different jurisdictions, and that have genuinely complicated arrangements when they switch components, technology, ideas and work between different centres. Even in a service business that does that through electronic communication and digital activity, there may be different people in different centres around the world who contribute to servicing the client and to dealing with the particular product. There are, therefore, genuine issues for the honest company in trying to define and measure precisely where work is done, where added value is greatest and what is a fair attribution.

We as legislators have to understand that complexity and try to come up with a good judgment, collectively and globally between the main jurisdictions, on what is a fair way to instruct those global companies to report in our different jurisdictions so that sensible amounts of tax are captured.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

I fully accept what the hon. Lady says. This whole saga illustrates the frustration that many of us have felt in this House for a long time that the European Union works extremely slowly and very deviously. That was what the referendum was all about: it was about taking back control of these decisions to this House and being able to implement decisions quickly, effectively and in accordance with the wishes of the British people. Unfortunately, we have not got an instant departure from the European Union. We have to negotiate our departure and serve article 50 and so on, but in the meantime there is a lot of frustration, I accept. That has been exacerbated by the way the previous Government played down—let us be generous to them—the EU impact in this regard before the referendum. They did not want people to think that there was another reason to vote to leave, so that we could remove VAT from women’s sanitary products.

On Second Reading of the Finance (No. 2) Bill, my right hon. Friend the then Financial Secretary, who is now the Chief Secretary, said:

“The Government are committed to making that change…I am proud that in the Finance Bill we are legislating to enable zero VAT rates for women’s sanitary products.”

I then intervened and said:

“I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress he has made. Why does clause 115 say that the measure will not come into effect when the Bill receives Royal Assent, but is subject to the Treasury introducing a provision at some later stage? Why can we not legislate on this in the Bill without any qualification?”

My right hon. Friend replied:

“It is customary, with changes in VAT rates, to give retailers notice. It is not usual for VAT changes to be put in place on the date of Royal Assent, as notice is usually provided. I reassure my hon. Friend that the intention is to provide a short period of time, following Royal Assent, in which retailers will have an opportunity to adjust prices. This is no desire by the Treasury to kick this into the long grass—we want to make progress on the matter.”—[Official Report, 11 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 102.]

I think that that was a very disingenuous remark, because there was no reference to any EU constraint. The impression given was that it was all being sorted out with the European Union and that it would be delivered through clause 115, as it then was, very quickly. Somebody in the Treasury must have known or suspected that it would not be delivered in the time envisaged or, perhaps, at all, but nobody wanted to disclose that to the British people in the run-up to the referendum. I have heard that an agreement was made between remainers in the then Government and in the Opposition to try to prevent the issue from being raised on the Floor of the House, in the Finance Bill, close to the time of the vote.

Is it not fantastic that we now have the freedom to do these things ourselves, in our own sovereign Parliament, in accordance with the wishes of the people? I hope that the new Treasury team will be much more open and transparent in the way they deal with such issues. If there is an EU constraint, let us say so.

I welcome Government amendment 161, because it says that the measure will take effect after the later of 1 April 2017 or

“the earliest date that may be appointed consistently with the United Kingdom’s EU obligations”,

whatever that might mean. Why, however, was that not included in the Bill to start with? It was never going to be possible for the measure to be implemented at an earlier date than was consistent with our EU obligations. People were led up the garden path: they were led to believe that there was going to be an instant delivery, but we now know that that is not going to happen. I hope that when we come to look at the wider issues of VAT, we will get on with, for example, removing the 5% VAT on domestic fuel, which we in the leave campaign made an issue during the referendum.

It was a long time ago, but it was on 1 April 1973 that VAT was introduced in our country as a requirement of our decision to join the European Union. At that time, the rate was 10% and the yield was £1.5 billion a year. The standard rate was increased in January 2011 and it has been 20% since then, and that raises £100 billion a year. After leaving the European Union, we will be free to set our rates of VAT at whatever level we wish.

[John Redwood]

Did my hon. Friend note that in the consultation document that the EU issued, not only did it not honour the pledge to our Prime Minister, but it made it very clear that it deeply dislikes discounted rates and zero bands, and so it wanted to take it in the other direction because it thought that countries presuming to give tax relief on products that they considered essential was an obstacle to a genuine single market?

[Mr Chope]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It sounds wonderful, does it not, Mr Speaker: an EU VAT action plan? We were led to believe that the action would provide more flexibility, but when one looked at the small print in the action plan, one could see that the whole thing was steered towards more rigidity, harmonisation and uniformity, exactly as my right hon. Friend has pointed out. Again, is it not fantastic that we will now be able to take responsibility for these things ourselves? I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who will be responding to the debate, will take the opportunity to state that from now on the Treasury will be a lot more open in the way it does its business, both with this House and with the people, and that it will not use disingenuous statements to create an impression that is inconsistent with reality.

It does not seem to me that we will be able to make this change lawfully unless and until we have negotiated our exit. I wish that we could, but as somebody who believes in the rule of law, I think that that is the position we are in. But how different it is from the position that we were led to believe we were in prior to the referendum. I wonder why that is!

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I rise to support amendments 142 and 144 and new clause 4, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Paula Sherriff). I stress that no deals have been struck with the Government on this issue, although we are open to being flexible and to discussing the matter at length with Ministers. I specifically congratulate my hon. Friend and all hon. Members who have campaigned so fervently on the issue. I will keep my comments brief, as my hon. Friend has already made her case very well. I confirm that she has the full support of the Opposition.

The amendments are designed to ensure that the Government’s pledge to abolish the so-called tampon tax has a clear deadline for implementation. My hon. Friend proposes 1 April 2017 or 1 April 2018. I must stress that Government amendment 161 does not address, and in fact suggests a degree of ambiguity, on this specific issue and the scope of our negotiations about VAT within the ambit of our EU membership. The job is not yet done, as the Minister knows. I know that she supports the idea generally and I welcome the comments she is likely to make, but more pressure is most certainly needed.

The explanatory notes to clause 125 state:

“This clause reduces the VAT rate on the supply of women’s sanitary products from 5 % to zero %.”

The Minister will be well aware that that is not the case. The clause does not zero-rate women’s sanitary products; it just provides the Treasury with enabling powers to do so at a time of its choosing and leaves wide open the question of when it will do so. My hon. Friend’s amendments would rectify that by imposing deadlines by which the tampon tax must be a thing of the past— 1 April 2017 in amendment 142, or 1 April 2018 in amendment 144. I hope the Minister will accept one of those amendments. I see no real reason why the Government need to delay this further, especially in the light of the decision to leave the EU.

[John Redwood]

rose—

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

I am conscious that we are trying to make progress, so I am afraid that I will not take any interventions.

As was said earlier, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury stated during the debate in the Public Bill Committee:

“I am optimistic that we will have the measure in place by 1 April 2017; I am happy to put that on the record.”

He also stated that

“the Government have an open mind as to whether we would accept the amendment on Report, when we hope to have greater clarity. We are confident that by 1 April there should be no reason why the measure is not in place. It is possible that the Government will come forward with our own amendment, but we may well simply accept amendment 5.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 7 July 2016; c. 146.]

As has been noted, my hon. Friend has indeed tabled such an amendment again, and a second amendment that would allow the Government even more flexibility by providing an extra year. The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) made some very important points, and tabled another amendment setting a deadline of the start of the next calendar year. The Minister therefore has a vast array of options—more than the Government did in Committee—so I hope she will not disappoint my hon. Friend and, for that matter, the rest of the House.

A related issue has been raised a number of times with the Minister, but I am not convinced it has been fully addressed, so I would be grateful if she provided further clarification. There is concern that the full benefits of the zero-rating of sanitary products will not be passed on to women, and that some retailers will simply seek larger profit margins. When the rate of VAT was reduced to 5%, the Government said they would monitor whether the benefits were passed on to consumers. I asked the Minister in the Public Bill Committee to provide more information about whether this assessment ever occurred, and if so, what the data showed. Will she provide an answer? My hon. Friend has of course taken the initiative in negotiating directly with some retailers, who have committed to passing on the cut in full, but some smaller retailers may not do the same. What steps will the Government take to ensure that women will benefit from this change, not the pockets of retailers?

Finally, my hon. Friend has also tabled new clause 4, which would require the Chancellor to carry out an assessment of the revenue raised from VAT on women’s sanitary products since 1 January 2001, when the then Labour Government introduced the lower rate of VAT, and to lay before Parliament a report of that assessment within 12 months of the Act coming in to force. It must include an estimate of the total revenue raised since January 2001, and provide information about government policy relating to this revenue. As my hon. Friend has explained, that would address future funding for women’s organisations that benefited from the tampon tax fund set up by the previous Chancellor when pressure was originally brought to bear over the issue. We hope that the Minister can give us some reassurances that those services will receive the secure long-term funding they deserve. Should my hon. Friend divide the House, we will support the new clause.

I urge the Minister to accept at least one of my hon. Friend’s amendments and to bring to a conclusion the campaign against the tampon tax, an outcome that will owe much to the hard and determined work of my hon. Friend, along with the women who have fought for it outside this place. Finally, I place on the record my support for the comments made by SNP Members on maternity products, another area that I urge the Minister to look into.

Article 50: Parliamentary Approval

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Penrose]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall try to bear up under the pressure. First, I gently say to the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) that it is difficult to argue that the Government’s approach is secret if it is in court. It is not a secret court; it will all be argued out in public. I have just said that the issues will be revealed as we go forward with the new Prime Minister. The point on which I hope I can reassure the hon. Lady is very straightforward: my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May)—it looks like she is going to be the new Prime Minister—has been very clear in saying that Brexit means Brexit. What that means is that the destination to which we are travelling is not in doubt. The means used to get there will have to be explained, but I think it only fair to wait until she is Prime Minister and has a chance to lay out her programme, the process and, therefore, when Parliament will have a chance to discuss and debate the issues. At that point I am sure that all will be revealed.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the way to take back control and seek parliamentary approval is to proceed quickly to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 while transferring all European law relevant to the single market into British law and at the same time protecting our borders and keeping our contributions? That is what we voted for. Will the new Government deliver that promptly?

[John Penrose]

As I just said, the important thing—I hope this reassures my right hon. Friend—is that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead has been clear that Brexit means Brexit. That means that the destination, on which he and I both agree, is not in doubt. There are questions on how we get there, precisely how to run the negotiations and the precise timing of what gets addressed and when, and I hope that both he and I will allow our soon-to-be-installed new Prime Minister time to lay that out. I am sure that she will do so at the first opportunity.

UK Economy

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[John McDonnell]

To be frank, we need to move on now. I expressed my concerns about some of the over-exaggerated claims at the beginning of the campaign that turned people off. We now know, however, that many of the claims made on both sides are unfortunately coming true.

The leave vote in last week’s referendum has left us all with an immense series of tasks, and the economic situation is a major challenge for us all. Let me run through some of the headline items that we know about over these last few days: the UK’s triple A credit rating has been lost; the pound fell to a 31-year low; sterling markets have been in turmoil, as have stock markets here and abroad; the FTSE 100 index registered the biggest single-day fall since the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers in 2008; employers, most notably in the financial services, are already looking to relocate jobs, with a quarter of all those employers saying that they have introduced a hiring freeze; and shares in UK banks have fallen dramatically. These are not comments, but realities, and this is just an outline of the situation that now obtains.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that the bond markets did the opposite of what the ratings agencies suggested? They said that the price of bonds should go down and the cost of state borrowing should go up, but I am very pleased to tell him that the opposite happened: bonds are at a new all-time high and, according to the market, we have record lows of borrowing costs. Does this not prove that the markets actually had a huge vote of confidence in respect of state debt and state creditworthiness?

[John McDonnell]

It proves the chaotic nature of the market at the moment.

Let me look ahead. Most major forecasters have revised their expectations of future growth sharply downwards. There is a major loss of capacity and the potential for permanent damage to the UK’s growth prospects cannot be ruled out. We await an official assessment from the Office for Budget Responsibility, as the Chancellor announced in his statement on Monday morning. I think that an initial assessment should be given sooner rather than later, but ongoing close monitoring would be welcome, with regular reports to Parliament to ensure that that is happening. There is a prospect that the OBR will report at least a serious worsening in the public finances.

--- Later in debate ---

[John McDonnell]

We are short of time and a lot of Members wish to speak.

Whenever aviation expansion takes place, it will be judged on the criteria that the Labour party has set, which include the environmental impact and the impact on the wider economy. We await the proposals from the Government and we will then take our decision.

The referendum vote has forced a debate on the best course for our economy and for economic policy. It is unlikely that a simple return to business as usual will be possible or even desirable, but there are immediate steps that can be taken to calm market volatility and to limit the shock to demand. It is incumbent on the Government to take those necessary measures and Labour, in the national interest, will support measures intended to stabilise the economy when they protect households and businesses.

On monetary policy, of course authority rests with the Bank of England to intervene to preserve the stability of banks and the wider economy. Governor Mark Carney’s Friday morning statement was important in helping to stabilise the immediate situation. However, some interventions by the Bank will require authorisation from the Government. To ensure the success of those interventions, it will be helpful if the House is kept as fully informed as practicable of those authorisations, with regular updates.

On fiscal policy, with the expected slump in demand, the Government’s present fiscal charter is, to say the least, increasingly anachronistic. With the Chancellor having missed two of his three targets—on debt and on the welfare cap—he will now have to suspend the deficit target. The charter’s restriction on investment spending in particular is impossible to defend. For the regions, a squeeze on Government investment could be especially damaging.

Last year—this was raised earlier at Question Time— over £10 billion was provided in regional development funding by the EU. That was concentrated on our most deprived regions and places that needed it the most. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that that essential funding will now be made good? What structures are being put in place to liaise with elected mayors, local government leaders and regional bodies to address the loss of EU funds?

The UK currently holds a 16% stake in the European Investment Bank, which last year disbursed a record £6 billion in investment for the UK. That includes £l billion for social housing. What steps are the Government taking to maintain current programme funding? What plans do the Government have for the UK’s stake in the European Investment Bank?

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John McDonnell]

May I press on? I have taken a significant number of interventions and I am worried about time.

Significant uncertainties have been created for those trading with Europe, including manufacturers that are reliant on extended supply chains across the EU. What measures are the Government putting in place to support supply chains that are threatened by the severance of those ties and the falling value of the pound?

Exit from the EU threatens the UK’s continued status as a global financial centre. A number of major banks have already put in place plans to move jobs from the UK. They are fearful of the loss of their European Union passport that allows them to win business across the EU. We need to know soon from the Government how they will ensure that those passport rights are retained. I hear that one French negotiating position is to offer EEA status with some controls on freedom of movement, but the loss of bank passporting rights. Clearly that is a move to encourage bank migration from London and it is unacceptable. The resignation of Lord Hill as Finance Commissioner means that the UK currently has no voice at Commission level to argue the case for UK finance. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the voice of UK finance continues to be heard in Europe? May we propose to Government that, as a matter of urgency, they establish a working group to monitor the ongoing threat to the UK’s financial stability, working with representatives from across the financial services industry?

It would be wrong not to mention the threats that have been made to community cohesion following the vote to leave. I was very concerned to hear about the attacks on the Polish community. Any such attacks must be condemned outright by the whole House. I have a Polish community in my constituency. The Polish War Memorial nearby at Northolt stands testimony to the sacrifices of Polish pilots during the second world war. I have attended many meetings at the Polish centre in Hammersmith, which was disgracefully attacked. I send my message of solidarity to that community and to anyone else suffering from the rise in racism. What mechanisms will the Government put in place with local government leaders and city mayors to protect these communities, to help to overcome these divisive actions and to resource the programmes that will be brought forward?

We will get through this period of uncertainty, as Britain has done many times in the past. There are real strengths in our economy, not least our talented and dedicated workforce. None the less, volatility continues and grave uncertainties remain about the UK’s future relationship with our European partners and the wider world. The future direction of Government strategy is not yet determined, but Labour is prepared, in the national interest, to work with the Government and our parliamentary colleagues on both sides of the House to ensure that the best interests of the British people are secured. I commend the motion to the House.

[The First Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

I very much welcome this opportunity to update Parliament and the country on some of the economic challenges that we now face. I welcome the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) to her new position as shadow Chief Secretary. I will not welcome all the new members of the Labour Front Bench because it would be a bit like the presentation of the Bills that we just saw, but it is very good that the shadow Chancellor is still in place, and he has 80% of the support of the Conservative parliamentary party to remain there.

May I respond to this sober debate with a message of reassurance and realism? I say at the outset that because this is a challenging time and this is a good opportunity for the House to discuss these issues, we are not going to seek to divide the House on the motion today.

That message begins with the reality that I have never shied away from telling the country the truth, as I have seen it, about our economic challenges, and we do now face very significant economic challenges as a result of the referendum decision last week. I do not resile from any of the concerns that I pointed to before the referendum, but I want to provide reassurance that we are about as well placed as we could possibly be to meet the challenges that lie ahead. The shadow Chancellor was correct to raise problems such as low productivity growth, which bedevil many western economies, but the British economy has been the strongest advanced economy in the world in recent years. We have the highest employment rate in our history. The capital requirements for our banks are 10 times higher than they were before the financial crisis. Inflation is low and stable, and real wages and household disposable incomes have been growing. These things did not happen by accident—they happened because over the last six years we took difficult, sometimes painful decisions in order to rebuild our economy, to strengthen our banks and to put our public finances in better order. We said we would fix the roof—and thank goodness we made the progress that we did.

While I personally gave everything to campaigning for a different outcome, we saw a clear result in the referendum. I accept that result and the Government accept that result. Now we need to implement that decision and deliver for the British people on the instructions they have given us.

[John Redwood]

As the 10-year cost of borrowing has fallen from 1.4% to under 1% and the rate for 30-year money is now under 2%—record lows—does that not mean that there will a windfall element from lower interest charges? Will the Government consider funding the debt longer at this advantageous time for borrowing?

[Mr Osborne]

My right hon. Friend is right to point to the fall in UK gilt yields, but there has been something of a flight to safety. In the last six years, we have made UK Government debt a safe haven in stormy waters, and on this side collectively we can take enormous pride in the fact that we have done that. It is very different of course from the situation six years ago when yields were increasing in the face of economic difficulties, whereas here they have come in.

In terms of the financing of the debt, I have already on a number of occasions over the last six years changed the skew of the Debt Management Office’s debt plan and made sure we have more longer-dated debt than we would otherwise have had. One of the reasons why international investors and others have confidence in the UK gilt market is that we do not chop and change all the time every week, so while my right hon. Friend makes a very good point, I do not think we should immediately respond to the events of the last week by changing our financing remit. Indeed, the message we need to be sending very clearly is one of stability and reassurance. That brings me to the plan I believe we should now follow.

First, it involves ensuring financial stability, and that is precisely what we have been doing in the past few days. In the run-up to the referendum, the Treasury worked closely with the Bank of England and the Financial Conduct Authority to put in place robust contingency plans for the immediate impact of a leave vote. I met the Governor of the Bank of England to discuss it on a number of occasions, and the Financial Policy Committee and the Monetary Policy Committee both had special meetings to discuss those contingency plans. The Prudential Regulation Authority—essentially, our bank regulator—worked systematically with each major financial institution to make sure they were financially sound and prepared for whatever the outcome of the referendum was going to be. The Bank of England pre-announced additional liquidity auctions to support the banking sector. People will have seen this week from the result of those auctions that that liquidity has been provided. Over the last few days, we have been working closely alongside Finance Ministers and central bank governors across the G7 nations and the nations of the European Union to make sure that we are monitoring developments closely and are ready to respond. The president of the European Central Bank updated the European Council yesterday—the Prime Minister reported on that to the House earlier—but it has to be said that the update was not particularly rosy. Let us be clear: these contingency plans were designed to prevent disorder in markets; they were not designed to stop markets adjusting to the new economic reality.

I can reassure the House today that our major banks are resilient. Capital and liquidity remain strong, and this morning we have seen greater stability in the major banks’ share prices, and the currency markets are continuing to function effectively. But there have been significant adjustments, and we have to be realistic about the impact of the referendum on the financial markets.

UK Economy: Post-Referendum Assessment

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

If the hon. Gentleman wants a positive case, let us put it this way: according to the shock scenario we have set out, in two years’ time, the UK economy will be 3.6% bigger if we stay in the EU than it will be if we leave. He criticises and wants to re-fight the Scottish independence referendum. May I just remind him—I suspect it will not be for the last time—that the Unionists won that referendum?

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Why does the forecast leave out the very beneficial impact of spending another £10 billion, which we would get back in contributions, on our own priorities, jobs and services, which would boost the economy by 0.6%? Why does it leave out the impact of the lower interest rates and the big injection of liquidity that the Bank of England says it will grant the economy around the time of the vote?

[Mr Gauke]

First, the report is for the next two years. As my right hon. Friend will be aware, even if we vote to the leave the European Union, we will continue to be members of it for those two years as we negotiate our departure. During that two-year period, we would continue to make contributions to the EU budget. May I also point out what the International Monetary Fund has said? It said that, essentially, if the economy shrinks by 1% or more, any fiscal gain from ceasing to make contributions to the EU will be wiped out by lower tax receipts and greater costs. Indeed, under the central scenario set out in the report, the public finances will be £24 billion worse off as a consequence of our leaving the EU.

On interest rates, the assumption in the report is for no changes to fiscal or monetary policy. I point out to my right hon. Friend that one of the predictions in the report is that we would see the pound falling in value and inflation increasing. The Monetary Policy Committee has made it clear that it would have a difficult trade-off to try to get the economy going at a time when there would clearly be a slowdown. At the same time, the pound would be falling and inflation would be rising. In those circumstances, the safest thing to do is to make no assumptions on what monetary policy would be.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[John Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend agree that £12 billion of the £58 billion deficit with the European Union is the money that we have to send to it and that we do not get back? It is payment in order to buy its imports. One does not normally have to make a contribution to a country in order to import things from it.

[Sir William Cash]

It has been said in the past that the House of Commons is the only lunatic asylum that is run by the inmates, but I think we pale into insignificance compared with the European Union. This just does not work. I ask the Minister to make a note on the piece of paper in front of him to remember to answer my question relating to that deficit and surplus issue, because every time I raise it I get no answer. Although I agree that we will continue to trade and to co-operate with Europe—we want to do so and they want to do it with us—when it comes to this question of the need to stay in the single market, it simply does not stack up. This document is put forward for approval by Parliament, so we are entitled to an answer to that question.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) about page 19 and that is the main reason I have entered this debate. It is an unfair exposition on the opportunities and risks linked to our membership of the European Union and I do not think it accurately reflects what the OBR has been saying. I am pleased that the OBR has now spoken for itself and put on the record the important point that it does not believe that in the five-year forecast period, were we to leave, there would be a decline in economic output or activity. Like many forecasters, the OBR believes that the net impact would be quite small. Of course, in line with others it has said that there could be volatility in currency and asset price markets. All I would add is that there has been massive volatility in those markets in the years we have been a member of the EU, so it would be somewhat outrageous to claim that that would suddenly stop were we to leave the EU, but I cannot see that it is a particularly damning point.

My hon. Friend has gone on at some profound length about what is wrong with page 19. I hope Ministers will look again and realise that it is not a fair exposition of the OBR’s position. Linking the OBR’s position with Christine Lagarde’s comment, which is obviously a comment made for the “stay inside” campaign trail rather than for normal commentary purposes, gives a misleading impression.

I wish to make some more fundamental points about the figures and the document before us this evening. Let us start with why we are doing this at all. It is a completely pointless exercise, but it is legally required by the treaty and the framework of law under which we live. It is a great pity that in the renegotiation this, along with dozens of other things, was not sorted out because if, as the Minister says, the Government can ignore the advice and the policy laid down by the European Union to control the deficit and get the debt down, what is the point of the Government having to table 300 pages of carefully selected documentation, go through the surveillance procedure, on some occasions receive a report saying that their policy is not good enough or they are not converging in the way that the European Union wishes, and the Government then saying, “Well, fortunately, there is no penalty on us so we will ignore that”?

It is strange to belong to a club, accept the rules and then, when we do not like the rules, say, “Of course, we didn’t really want any of that and fortunately we have been opted out of the penalty bit of it.” It is a strange exercise. I suspect that the official machine of the Government, which goes on whoever is in office, is quite guided by all this. There is probably a wish on the part of officials to get the British Government policy and the figures closer to the convergence requirements. It is high time the European Union itself had an honest debate about the most pressing and most difficult target it has set—the target that all member states should keep their stock of debt to 60% of their national income.

Practically every member state is way above that, and some of them violate the target by having more than double the level set down by the European Union. Why does that body think it is sensible to persevere with a target that none of the member states wish to keep and none of them are trying to reach?

[George Kerevan]

May I add that the rule that sets the 60% target also states that member states in breach must have a rectification programme and bring their debt level, whatever it is, down by five percentage points a year, which this Government have significantly failed to do and significantly will fail to do for a long, long time?

[John Redwood]

All the Governments are failing to do that, and it is even more pressing and difficult for a country such as Greece, where the penalties do apply because it is in the euro scheme. Despite all the best efforts of the European leadership, the European Central Bank and others, and very cruel and difficult expenditure cuts that Members in this House would not have accepted for the United Kingdom, Greece is still miles off getting anywhere near the stock-of-debt target and it has struggled until recently to get down to the deficit target.

We need to ask fundamental questions of our European partners about why we go through this routine and what malign influence it has on some economies and some economic performances around the European Union, which should be a matter of common concern all the time we remain in that body. The Minister says this is not a new exercise and it is not much of a burden on the British state; it is just one of those things, and we send in figures that we produce for other purposes. That is not quite true. The introduction to the document clearly has to be written, the selection has to be made, it is clear throughout the document that it is written for domestic purposes and for the purpose of forwarding it to the European Union, and we try to produce figures that we would not otherwise produce in order to conform with the workings of the European Union.

Next, I would like to highlight the figure for the convergence criteria and the so-called treaty deficit on page 186 of the report. That shows that in 2016-17, if all goes well and these figures work out, for the first time in many years we will get below the 3% target to 2.9%. That makes my point: we would not have to calculate that treaty deficit, think that it was significant or use it as part of the guidance for the British economy if we were not signed up to this surveillance and management system within the European Union. The Minister has to bear it in mind that there is actually some subtle guidance in the European policy. I think that many of my constituents would find it quite surprising that we have to table 300 pages of detailed financial and economic information in order to comply, and that that is then put through a scrutiny and surveillance process.

The next figure that I would like to highlight is on page 156, which shows how much in “expenditure transfers” we have to make to the European Union institutions—in other words, how much money we send that we do not get back. We see that the November forecast for 2016-17 was £10.7 billion, which is a very considerable sum, and that the March forecast, just four months later, has gone up to £11.8 billion. Between the autumn statement and the current Budget there is an increase of £1.1 billion in next year’s expenditure transfers to the EU institutions.

That figure of £1.1 billion is very close to the figure that the Government had pencilled in for disability cuts. I do not know about you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I would rather not have the disability cuts and not pay £1.1 billion extra to the European Union. Why can we not make those kinds of choices? The reason, of course, is that we are signed up to membership of an organisation that thinks it knows better than we do how to spend our own money. I think that people in the United Kingdom are getting very frustrated at being told that we have to be very careful about our priorities, only to discover, if they get guidance from these complex figures, that the European Union can take £1.1 billion extra off us for next year without a by-your-leave. That leaves us struggling to find that money when we try to make the Budget add up, ending up with options and choices that I am sure Ministers did not really want to make, and which Parliament, in its wisdom, has decided should not be made.

I draw the House’s attention to some very important figures on page 205 that the Government are sending to our European partners and masters about projected net migration into the United Kingdom. I was very happy to campaign with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the previous general election on a sensible and sensitive policy of controlled migration, wishing to get it down to the tens of thousands by the end of the Parliament. It was a very popular policy, because I think that people liked the idea that there would be a fair system offering sensible rules so that people could understand it before deciding whether or not to come to our country. Interestingly, the forecast that we are sending to the European Union shows that the level of migration will stay much higher than the Government’s target—it shows 256,000 in 2016, declining to 185,000 in 2021. There is also a further projection in which net migration stays considerably higher, actually above 250,000 in every year.

I think that matters, because the Government’s intentions are very clear: they would like to get net migration well below these forecast figures. Why, then, is the forecast so high? I think that it is very simple: the forecast is that high because the European continental economies, particularly in the south of our continent, are performing very badly and have created mass unemployment on an extremely worrying scale, so the UK, which has a more successful economic policy that is generating a lot of jobs, is acting as a magnet for people who are otherwise without hope of employment.

That policy is making it very difficult for the United Kingdom Government to hit their very popular target on migration. I hope that when this document is submitted Ministers will follow it up by pointing that out to the European Union and saying that they have a solemn promise to keep to the United Kingdom electors, who helped elect them to government, and that this set of EU policies, creating joblessness and therefore triggering a lot of foot-loose migration around the European Union, is making it very difficult to honour that promise.

It also leads us to worry about the quality of some of these forecasts, because I am sure that the Government wish to get the level down, but there is a great danger that the variant of a much higher level has been put in, because actually that is what they are afraid will happen. I hope the Minister will consider that when he replies and that if we are going to go through the process of submitting our homework on economic matters to the European Union to be marked—by sending it 300 pages of figures—we will also say to it, “You are making it impossible for us to meet our legitimate wish to create more jobs to mop up unemployment in our country and to get wages up, as we would like to, because your failing economic policies in many parts of the euro area are bringing a number of migrants into our country that makes it impossible for us to meet our targets.”

Those are just a few brief comments on an extremely complex set of documents and numbers, which show that, while we stay in this body, we need to engage much more and to get some change so that there is honesty in the targeting and an understanding of the damage that some of the targets and policies are creating. However, it will not be a surprise to hon. Members to learn that I think that the simplest thing would be for us to leave the European Union so that this is the last one of these documents we ever have to produce. We can then take control of our own money, banish austerity, spend the £10 billion on things that we want and leave the European Union free to get on with its political union, which is clearly what it will need to do to try to deal with the mass unemployment, the lack of cash transfers and the inadequacy of its regional policies.

I hope tonight’s debate will be of use to the general public and that they will understand that we can take back control, spend our own money, and have prosperity, not austerity. That is what we will get if we leave the European Union.

Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The important point here is that the United Kingdom is not obliged to converge with other EU member states. If I remember correctly, the terminology dates back to the Maastricht treaty, and this is a part of the process that originates from that. The UK is not subject to any sanctions as a consequence of our participation in this process, nor are we required to take any directions from the European Commission in respect of our economic policies.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

But surely the purpose of tabling the numbers to the Commission is that it puts it under what it calls “surveillance”? It can then make an adverse report. It is very clear that the intention is that our budget deficit should never be more than 3% of GDP. I note that, for the first time in some time, the Government will at least get the budget deficit below 3%. I am in favour of doing that anyway, but is it not the case that they have to do that because that is what convergence is all about?

[Mr Gauke]

It is the case that the provision dates back to the Maastricht treaty—no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) can provide further details on its history—which was incorporated into the European Union (Amendment) Act 1993. That requires us to submit a report. The important point for the House is that this does not give the European Commission the ability to impose sanctions on the UK. I am in complete agreement with my right hon. Friend that the UK should not have excessive deficits, but that is a matter ultimately decided by this House, this Parliament and the elected Government of the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I have already made my point about the inaccuracy embedded in the report and need not repeat any of that; I am sure that the Minister heard what I said. In a way, it is an impossible situation for him, but that does not remedy the inaccuracy, and I need to hear what the Government propose to do. It may be inconvenient or fortuitous, but the reality is that it is there. The approval by Parliament of these documents for the purposes of onward submission to the European Commission simply cannot be conducted on the basis of the documents under consideration. I will now park the issue, but I am inclined to vote against the Government this evening on account of the inaccuracy, because it just does not make sense. I will be glad if the Minister tries to put things right in some manner, even if only orally, but he may be unable to do so. It is perhaps just as well if I leave things as I have just stated.

What I really want to refer to is the question of national debt, which I mentioned in an intervention. The problem is that the stability and growth pact, the convergence criteria and the 3% are important because they are the basis upon which countries decide whether to run their economies in line with European law or to be cavalier, and there are massive problems in the European Union relating to all that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) mentioned that we are just about on the cusp of 3% at the moment, but that is simply not the case in other countries, which raises an important question. For example, the Italians are in dire trouble and are in an enormous battle to try to get some wiggle room into the stability and growth pact, which has led to extremely bad relations with Germany.

In 2003-04, however, nobody blinked an eye when it suited Germany to play around with the pact and not comply with its provisions. Italy is in difficulties and Greece remains in monumental difficulties, infringing the rule of law in Europe as expressed in the stability and growth pact and the convergence criteria, but Germany insists that everybody else obeys the rules until it does not suit it to do so. I find that difficult to accept. In fact, I do not accept it; I reject it. Either there is a rule of law or there is not. The bottom line is that there is a great deal of talk in the European Union about the rule of law, but unfortunately Germany does pretty much what it wants

[John Redwood]

I remind my hon. Friend that, even today, when Germany would say that she is very virtuous in having no budget deficit, she still has a much bigger proportion of debt to GDP than the 60% criterion and no obvious means of getting back down there.

[Sir William Cash]

My right hon. Friend is, of course, right about that, as he really understands all these things. There are massive problems with the whole of this European project, not only because of the inconsistencies but because of the laying down of requirements and obligations that are, in effect, disregarded when it suits certain countries but not when it suits others. The performance required under section 5 relates not only to the accuracy of the figures, to which I have already referred, but to social, economic and environmental goals, as set out in article 2 of the treaty, and a range of submissions in respect of article 103, which deals with economic growth, industrial investment, employment and the balance of trade.

I am happy to agree that the Conservative Government have managed to retrieve the appalling situation that faced us before 2010, but that does not alter the fact that we are talking about a debt level of £1.5 trillion when it is actually very much more than that. I have suggested that if we include the pension liabilities, it could be as much as £3 trillion to £4 trillion. One really has to take that on board, because if someone running a company conveniently parked an element of required debt, the auditors would never give them a clean bill of health. I do not see how pension liabilities can legitimately be off balance sheet, given the scale of this debt and the fact that all those public pensions have to be paid.

I want to move away from that issue, and I would be interested if the Minister would be good enough to refer to one these points in his reply, if he has time. I want to refer now to another aspect of this paper being presented to Parliament for its approval. Page 19 is headed: “Economic opportunities and risks linked to the UK’s membership of the European Union”. What follows on the whole of the page is a litany of reasons why we should stay in the EU. All the arguments of those who say, as I do, that we should leave are dismissed, and I find it tendentious. I have already criticised the three White Papers on the grounds that they lack accuracy and impartiality, which I was promised by the Minister for Europe when I put the point to him during a ping-pong between the Lords and the Commons on the duty to provide information under sections 6 and 7 of the European Referendum Act 2015. Yet, here we are, confronted with exactly the same problem. It is not just that there is inaccuracy embedded in this document, which I am bound to say I do not think the Government can get out of, but there is inaccuracy that conflicts with the provisions of those sections. There is a real list of problems here.

I should also mention the reference on page 19 to the virtues of the single market. I voted for the Single European Act in 1986 but I did table an amendment to say, in effect, that nothing in the Act shall derogate from the sovereignty of the United Kingdom Parliament. Things have moved on enormously since those difficult days, because if I table an amendment now to preserve the sovereignty of the UK Parliament, you, Mr Speaker, will allow it to be debated, and the Clerks of the House of Commons will not raise the difficulties that I was faced with then. In a nutshell, I was told by the then Speaker, and indeed by the Clerk of Public Bills, that I was not allowed to move such an amendment—it was as bad as that. Mr Enoch Powell came up to me in the Lobby and said, “I see that you have put down this amendment, and I agree with you.” As in so many other matters relating to economics, he was not exactly wrong.

The reference to the single market has to be weighed against whether it has achieved its objectives. Page 19 says that the single market is full of virtue and is entirely necessary for the United Kingdom.

Budget Changes

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 21st March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

As the hon. Gentleman says, there will be a statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and we also have two further days of Budget debates. As for changes to the fiscal position, in view of the oil price changes of recent months, I think we should look at the consequences for Scotland if it had been independent.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

On 9 December, the Government issued a policy document announcing an increase in VAT on energy-saving materials from 5% to 20% to raise £65 million in the first full year. May I take it that I can now welcome the Government’s decision not to go ahead with that proposal? I would dearly love it if they did not proceed with it. Also, how are they going to deal with the fact that the European Court and European VAT law require us to impose this very unpopular tax?

[Mr Gauke]

The decision was taken some weeks ago not to proceed with any changes to VAT on energy-saving materials in this Finance Bill because new evidence had emerged and we no longer believed that we needed to go ahead with what was previously suggested. It is also the case—the Prime Minister will say something about this later—that because the European Commission and other member states are willing to agree to our arguments about the need for greater flexibility on VAT rates, we do not believe that these changes will be necessary.