Section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

We have signed up to certain aspects of the stability and growth pact. One precondition is that we present this information, as we have done every year since the Maastricht treaty. I will set out later why the UK is treated differently in this process from other European Union member states, but there is nothing new in the information that we will supply and it has been presented to the House. When the EU sought to revise its economic governance package, we were very clear that, whereas other member states provide information to the Commission in advance of their budget-setting process, the UK will provide it after our process.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the Minister believe the UK is bound by the Maastricht rules that its deficit should be 3% per annum and no more, and that it should have a stock of debt of only 60% of national income?

[Mr Hoban]

We are required to endeavour to achieve the Maastricht criteria. A very different regime is in place for the UK because of the opt-out that John Major negotiated under the Maastricht treaty. We have been clear, as the economic governance package has developed in recent years, on preserving that opt-out and the different treatment for the UK as compared with other European member states. One achievement is that we are not subject, for example, to the sanctions regime to which other member states are subject.

We jealously protect our particular position in the process, as I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would want us to do. Clearly, were we to follow the Leader of the Opposition’s policy—he wants us to join the eurozone at some point—we would have to give up those safeguards and protections. That is not a policy that this Government or the Conservative party would support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

Different member states have different constitutional requirements and different histories on the use of referendums, so it is not necessarily appropriate for a politician here in Westminster to lecture others on how to ratify treaty changes.

Before I took the intervention from the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), who has now disappeared, I was talking about how the UK fits into the economic governance measures. We will present the convergence programme to the Commission after the Budget has been presented to Parliament—the process we are going through at the moment. The EU, alongside other international institutions such as the OECD and the International Monetary Fund, can comment on the Budget, but, crucially, we are under no obligation to take action. It is up to the Government, not Brussels, to decide what action to take in the UK.

Of course, as the euro area moves towards closer fiscal integration, we must remain vigilant to protect the UK’s interests. Where matters are rightly for discussion or agreement by all 27 member states—for example, on the single market or financial services—they must be agreed by all 27 member states. In case there is any doubt, I can reassure Members that the UK remains at the heart of the EU’s economic debate. It is because of the Prime Minister’s recent letter with 11 other Heads of State or Government ahead of the March European Council that the Council conclusions were agreed with a commitment to ambitious structural reforms at the EU level. That included concrete Council conclusions on strengthening the single market and its governance; completing the digital single market by 2015; making further progress in reducing administrative burdens; and boosting trade by removing trade barriers and ensuring better market access and investment conditions.

The Government will push for even more ambition, however, because a return to sustainable growth is the only way for EU member states to pay down their debts and exit the current crisis. It is essential that the Commission uses EU-level policy levers fully to support growth, but member states must continue to take tough decisions to prioritise the most growth-enhancing reforms, matching the kind of ambition that the Government have demonstrated since coming to office, including in our most recent Budget. The Budget information we are providing to the Commission in the convergence programme is part of the European semester process, now in its second year, and will be something that the Commission will look at.

[Mr Redwood]

Does the Minister think that, when the Commission reviews the British Government’s homework, it will say that we need to go further and faster with the cuts or endorse the Government’s programme?

[Mr Hoban]

I do not wish to pre-empt the Commission’s conclusion—it would be wrong to do so—but when other international organisations have looked at the Budget and the Government’s path to fiscal reform, they have clearly endorsed keeping to the path and sticking to the course. That is important. It has meant that we have retained the confidence of international markets, and interest rates are low as a consequence, which is to the benefit of households and businesses. That is vital to the programme of continued economic reform in the UK.

It is important that we discuss these matters with international partners and have a debate about economic policy in Europe, but at home we have to stick to the path required to deliver the necessary reforms. The Budget builds on the Government’s ambition to create a stable and prosperous economy, it shows our commitment to fiscal consolidation and economic growth, and, along with the OBR’s forecast, forms the basis of the UK’s convergence programme. We are taking the right path, and I hope that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I have some sympathy with the Minister in this debate, which is about colossal issues, such as the future of economic prosperity throughout the European Union and its impact on our own economy, yet it is also a rather absurd debate. Successive Governments have felt that they have to table documentation and figures to the European Union, but they are embarrassed by that fact because they know that many of us feel that it is this Parliament, which answers to the British people, that should debate and settle these issues, and that what we are doing is none of the EU’s business. If we do a good job, we will stay in office; if we do a bad job, we will be thrown out of office, and the British people will rightly choose another group of people as they decided to do in 2010 as this crisis developed. We think that that is the right approach.

I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that if the Opposition had tabled a motion suggesting that the House should tell Brussels that we would no longer send it these documents, I would probably vote with the Opposition, because I would consider that a sensible way of trying to send an obvious message to Brussels. However, we are being invited to spend more time debating the crucial topic of what kind of economic policy would best promote growth and stability in our own country, and what contribution wider economic policies can make to stability and growth in the European Union as a whole.

The description of the pact that we are debating as a stability and growth pact is a grotesque bad-taste joke at the expense of the European peoples. It is clear from the way in which it now operates in the euroland countries that it is actually an instability and recession pact. It is a pact for mutually assured deflation. It is intended to do more damage at the very point in an economic cycle when an economy is performing very badly, to withdraw spending power from both the private and the public sector in an economy with too little demand, and to take jobs away in an economy with a problem of mass youth unemployment.

[Mark Hendrick]

I accept that the policies of many euro area member states are deflationary, but it is ridiculous to deride them simply because those countries are members of the eurozone when our own Government’s policies are equally deflationary.

[Mr Redwood]

As I shall make clear shortly, our policies are rather different. For one thing, the coalition Government decided to increase current public spending, which is running at £64 billion a year more this year than in the last year of Labour government. The Red Book shows that real current public spending has risen in each of the two years of the coalition Government, although not by very much. The Government are clearly not trying to deflate the economy by introducing massive current spending cuts, given that overall current spending has been rising.

[Stewart Hosie]

The right hon. Gentleman, who knows the Red Book inside out, will recall that it makes it clear that the Government’s projected discretionary consolidation by 2016-17 amounts to £155 billion a year, of which 81% will be delivered by cuts in services and the remainder by tax increases. The hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) was right: the Government are embarking on precisely the policies for which the right hon. Gentleman is criticising others.

[Mr Redwood]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not read the Red Book intelligently. The 80:20 statistic on which Members seem to rely relates to changes compared with much bigger growth in public spending that was in inherited programmes. It is not the reality. The reality of the Government’s strategy is a massive increase in taxes over the planned five years of the present Parliament to pay for rather modest increases in current public spending over the life of the Parliament, and to get the deficit down. The 2010 strategy suggested that tax revenues would be £171 billion a year more in year 5 than they had been in the last Labour year. The Government have now had to reduce that figure a bit because—as other Members have pointed out—the expected growth has not been forthcoming, for a variety of reasons.

We need to promote growth vigorously and actively, which is common ground between the Government, coalition Back Benchers and many Opposition Members. The argument, surely, concerns what measures are most likely to bring that about. It appears that over the last four years both Governments have operated policies involving actively increasing public spending, with the exception of capital spend—certainly overall spending has risen—and actively promoting massive borrowing, while at the same time the economy has bombed very badly. I am not suggesting that that is causal, but it should lead Opposition Members to ask why that fiscal injection—massive borrowing and an increase in current public spending—has not done the job. There seems to be some disconnection between the remedy that they recommend and the reality of what is happening.

When we look at the way in which other countries have pulled out of crises of this kind, and, indeed, the way in which Britain has pulled out of similar but, perhaps, less aggressively damaging crises than the one that we inherited, we see that there is nearly always a period during which public spending must be reduced or controlled quite strongly to make room for a private sector recovery, and that a series of measures to promote that recovery will then be necessary. As I have explained at length in the past, banking reform and competitive banking are crucial. The Government’s theory favours a tight fiscal policy and a loose monetary policy. They want to allow more money to circulate through the private sector through credit and through the banking system, and they want to lower the deficit gradually in the public sector so that the fiscal policy becomes a bit tighter.

[Mark Hendrick]

The right hon. Gentleman makes great play of tax revenues. We all know where they come from—they come from those who can least afford to provide them—but given that only one private sector job is coming along to replace every 10 jobs that are being lost in the economy, where will they come from in future?

[Mr Redwood]

So far the strategy has generated quite a lot of new private sector jobs, which is very welcome, but it is obvious that it needs to generate many, many more over the next three years if it is to secure the savings on welfare benefits that I am sure all Members wish to see.

It is nonsensical for Opposition Members to say that the poor will be paying the taxes. We have just seen a big increase in thresholds which takes many people out of income tax altogether at the lower end of the income scale. Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman looks at the Red Book, he will see that there will be a sharp acceleration in self-assessment income tax—the income tax that is paid mainly by the rich—once we get the rate down. I know that Opposition Members do not like reading the figures in the Red Book, but it provides a much better case than Ministers ever provide for why we need to get back closer to Labour’s rates of income tax.

One of the things that I most admired about the former Prime Minister and last Chancellor of the Exchequer but one was his insistence that 40% was the highest rate of income tax that could be charged to optimise the amount of money obtained from the rich. He stuck to that view throughout his time as Chancellor and most of his time as Prime Minister. We all know that he only put it in as a political trap at the end of his period in office when he could see the writing on the wall, but it is obvious from the Red Book figures that he was right: 40% is about as high as we can go to optimise the revenue.

According to the forecast in the Red Book, the revenue will stream in after the rate falls to 45p. If Opposition Members look at the Red Book, they will see that last year, under the 50p regime, self-assessment income tax fell by an amazing 9%. That was because rich people who have a lot of freedom and ability to decide how much to pay themselves—I know that Opposition Members do not like that, but it happens to be the state of play—decided to pay themselves a great deal less. Both the outgoing and the incoming Governments had said that the tax was temporary, so they decided that they would hold back their income. It was obvious that they would do that.

[Gavin Shuker]

The right hon. Gentleman is talking like a cheerleader about the Laffer curve. Why does he think that the UK economy is not growing?

[Mr Redwood]

I think that the UK economy may be growing. We will know the facts tomorrow, when we see the first quarter figures, but I suspect that the economy will grow this year. I accept the Government’s forecast of a slow and modest rate of growth. Why, though, is the economy not growing more quickly? There are two main reasons.

The first reason is banking. All the cash that the Bank of England is printing is not going into circulation in the private sector. It is very helpful to keep the Government’s rate of interest down, and it is very helpful to make the increase in public spending more affordable because it controls the interest rate cost for the Government; but the money cannot enter the private sector in any real quantity because the banks are under a huge regulatory cosh to hold more cash and capital at what is, in my view, the wrong stage in the cycle, which means that we cannot secure the growth in banking credit that would finance a better recovery.

The second reason is that taxation is now very high overall in the United Kingdom, which—combined with the inflation tax that has resulted from the high inflation rate that we inherited, which has remained persistently high—means that real incomes are being badly squeezed. It is plain to us all that real incomes started the squeeze under Labour, when the recession really hit, and that that squeeze has continued. A progressive squeeze on the scale that we have experienced since 2008 hits demand and makes recovery that much more difficult.

[Graham Stringer]

Is there not a third reason: that we are in the wrong part of the world, next to the eurozone, which has no mechanism for the poorer countries to get rid of their trade imbalances or for Germany to get rid of its trade surplus? Normally that would be done by revaluing or devaluing those currencies, but having one currency makes it impossible.

[Mr Redwood]

I know that you would like me to wind up quickly, Mr Deputy Speaker, because others wish to contribute, but it is such a pity, as this is a crucial issue. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is great difficulty in financing the big balance of payments deficits in the eurozone. Now that a mechanism has been found—German surplus deposits in the ECB being routed to weak member states’ banks through the ECB—the Germans are kicking up a fuss, because they suddenly realise that they have €600 billion at risk and they are not very happy. However, as the main surplus country, Germany has to finance the transfers in the union, and until she does so actively and in an encouraging way, there will be all these kinds of problems.

We have problems in Greece, Portugal and Ireland, which we know about. We now have deep problems developing in Spain, and we even have a problem in the Netherlands—which was meant to be one of the good guys—because of a falling out over the rather modest cuts needed to hit the Maastricht criteria. I agree that we need to get to 3% and 60% in due course—I have no problems with the European targets—but I feel strongly that we should do so for our own reasons, in our own time. It is nothing to do with Europe how we run this economy, and the sooner Ministers have the courage to tell Europe that, the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend on both those points: first, this is a complete waste of time, and secondly, we certainly ought to have a referendum. That is not, of course, the matter before us tonight, however. Instead, this is the question under discussion tonight: what is the point of sending this document to Brussels?

The Minister admits that we pay no attention to what Brussels says to us, and that we govern our own affairs, so what is the point of producing this document? We should be honest with the people in Brussels and say, “Look, we’re not going to listen to you anyway. We’re independent in these matters, and we’re going to stop sending you this document every year.” It is a complete waste of time to send it this year—and I would be very interested to know what happened to last year’s document.

[Mr Redwood]

Does my hon. Friend also agree that it is a cruel paradox that the EU lectures member states to get their deficit down and then demands more money from them by way of public spending?

[Mr Nuttall]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point, and it prompts the following: if the bureaucrats in Brussels are keeping an eye on the eurozone, something has gone pretty badly wrong because right across the eurozone nobody is sticking to the rules and regulations. The growth and stability pact went west years ago. If the bureaucrats had stuck to it a bit more closely, all the bail-outs, mechanisms and IMF funds would not have been necessary. If they had spent a little less time reading convergence documents and a little more time concentrating on the problems in the eurozone, our country might be better off because our European neighbours might be better off too and would therefore want to buy our goods and services.

There is no useful purpose to our constituents in this document being sent to Brussels, and I urge the House to vote against the motion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Main]

As usual, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. Why do we want to converge? I do not believe that the British public even know that we are converging, given that this is so lost in the mists of time.

[Mr Redwood]

I fear that the convergence programme began so that countries could converge with the Maastricht criteria to join the euro. As it is clear that we do not want to join the euro, we should in no way be talking about convergence.

[Mrs Main]

I shall not be supporting this motion, because I fundamentally disagree with what is on the front of the document—convergence. I do not think that our currency or our country should be converging with anything in Europe. Our sovereign Parliament should not have to hand in its notes to see whether or not they are acceptable to Europe. If there is convergence, I am sure that somebody is marking us out of 10 on how far down the road we have gone. If we have gone down that road, I would happily stop doing so right this minute. I conclude by saying that at some point this Parliament has got to stand up for itself and say, “We are not going to do this any more.” I would like this to be the year when we are not going to do this any more.

IMF

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I do not think that there is much political opportunism in having to take the difficult decision that Britain should contribute to IMF resources. I have taken that difficult decision, and I am happy to explain it to Parliament and to the public.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Given that I agree with the Chancellor that IMF money should not be used to bail out a currency, will he urge the IMF to make sure that loans are made available to European countries only when they are in a position to devalue or when they are withdrawing from the single currency? Otherwise, as with the sterling area, surely the responsibility rests with the governing authorities and the central bank of the euro to make the money, the loans, the subsidies available.

[Mr Osborne]

I do not agree with my right hon. Friend on this point, because if the IMF said it was never going to support a loan or undertake a programme with a eurozone country, it would, first, be walking away from one of the largest economic areas in the world. Secondly, all those eurozone countries would presumably then cease to be members of the IMF, because there would be no interest in it for them. So France, Germany and other countries would then withdraw from the IMF, and I do not think that that is what we want to see happen in the IMF. The IMF needs to support all countries that get into difficulty, provided the conditions are met and the rigour is applied to those programmes.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood—the first chance that I have had to say that today.

Clause 209 and our amendment to it, amendment 5, relate to the bank levy. The point of the amendment is to raise the issues that Opposition Members believe ought to be at the forefront of the Government’s thinking and at the heart of their Budget: what we do to stimulate growth and, in particular, to generate jobs in our economy. Crucially, on a day when we have seen yet another report, this time from the Institute for Public Policy Research, on the scarring impact of long-term unemployment on, in particular, young people, and on a day when we still see 1 million young people languishing on the dole, it seems to me a very easy argument and a very simple point to make to the Government that such issues ought to be at the forefront of not just our mind but theirs.

This aspect of the Bill, the bank levy, offers an opportunity for the Government to do something to fill the gaping hole at the heart of their Budget when it comes to creating growth and generating jobs. There is not a single word in the Budget or in the Bill about the problem of youth jobs, and that is a crying shame, so I hope that the Government will later today amend that omission.

In a moment I shall discuss the background to the bank levy, but to begin with I shall draw together some of the common themes that run through my remarks and the Bill—themes from the debate that we have just had on clause 1 and this debate on clause 209 and the bank levy.

First, I want to raise some questions about the Government’s competence. Clause 1, the profound uncertainty about Government decisions, the other more general decisions in the Budget in relation to VAT on caravans and on pasties, which we will debate later, and the various other curious measures that they have brought forward have all already raised enormous and pressing questions about the competence of the Chancellor and the Government when it comes to managing our economy.

Secondly, there are questions about certainty. Earlier we debated the HMRC report on the Exchequer effect of the 50p rate, and Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked significant questions about the accuracy of the Government’s modelling in that report and the accuracy of the claims that only £100 million will be lost to the Exchequer. There are further questions to be asked about the accuracy with which the Government have measured the impact of the bank levy to date and juxtaposed it with the rates of revenue which were raised by the bank bonus tax that the previous, Labour Government introduced.

Thirdly, there is a crucial set of questions about values and priorities, because both the clauses that we have debated to date and the clause before us raise questions about the priorities and values of this Government versus those of the Opposition. Those questions do not reflect terribly well on this Government, Mr Gale, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair—[Interruption.] Sir Roger, of course. How on earth could I have forgotten? Sir Roger, welcome. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I suggest that the Government could simply do the decent thing today by deciding to retain the bank levy but also introduce a bank bonus. That would be the wise thing to do, and it would set about raising the revenue that could be used to try to create 100,000 jobs for young people.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister think that the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds HBOS need less profit and less retained cash to get out of the mess they are in, or more?

[Owen Smith]

I would be terribly happy for all the banks, including RBS and HBOS, to make more profit. That would clearly be a very good thing for the British economy; we are entirely agreed on that. At the moment, however, they are not being asked to bear a particularly heavy burden, and nor are the other banks that are already making significant profits—lower than in previous years, but still significant. It is not easy to square that with the Conservative Government’s previous commitment to honour our intention to make those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. The Government’s decisions on the 50p rate and the bank levy do not bear out their former agreement with us; rather, they speak of a Government who have decided to make a different set of decisions over the past few years, as borne out most recently by the 50p tax rate. The Government should think again about how much money they are raising from the banks and what is the appropriate amount that they should raise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

That would have been a good intervention, were it not for the fact that the £3.5 billion that was realised is written in black and white on page 101 of the OBR document. It is clear how much money was raised—£3.5 billion. [Interruption.] If the Minister wants to intervene to correct me on that, he can do so.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Owen Smith]

Yes.

[Mr Redwood]

The shadow Minister is not completing the thought. We are not disputing the gross amount. We are asking how much other revenue was lost because of the behavioural consequences. He has agreed that the purpose of the bank bonus tax was to drive down bonuses. Assuming that there was some success, the Exchequer must have lost a pile of money in other taxes.

[Owen Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that there would have been behavioural impacts. We do not dispute that, nor do we dispute that there would have been behavioural impacts in respect of the 50p rate. What we dispute is that the behavioural impacts would be as significant as those projected in the document on the 50p rate and those alleged by the Government on the bank levy. Given how fallible those projections have been shown to be in today’s Treasury Committee report and in any number of comments written about the HMRC report on clause 1 and the 50p rate, we are entirely right to question the basis of the assumptions both on the 50p rate and on the bank levy.

[Mr Redwood]

If the hon. Gentleman reads the Red Book further, he will see that £4 billion-plus more a year will be raised from self-assessment income tax under the 45p rate than under the 50p rate. Indeed, in the year to April 2012 there was a 9% reduction in self-assessment income tax, because the top income tax payers paid themselves 25% less than the year before.

[Owen Smith]

At the danger of being ruled out of order for repeating today’s earlier debates—[Interruption.] The Financial Secretary says from a sedentary position that I am on the back foot, but I am absolutely not. I have been pointing out to his colleagues for the past couple of hours that the volume of behavioural change anticipated in the Exchequer analysis is fundamentally flawed. The taxable income elasticity point chosen by the Exchequer to derive that volume of behavioural change is completely outwith the normal delta used by economists to assess the elasticity of top incomes. [Interruption.] No, we are talking about the future. We are talking about what behavioural change there will be and what the yield will therefore be in future.

That takes us to the central question of the Government’s competence. There are questions to be asked about the competence of the way in which they set up the bank levy. Why on earth did the Government choose in the first instance a rate of 0.045%, only to have to increase it five times in the past 18 months to hit their annual yield target of £2.5 billion? I would be delighted to hear the Financial Secretary explain that to us. Why did the Government do it that way around? It does not make any sense to me. It would have been more sensible either to have stuck with the payroll tax, as we suggested, or to have arrived at a hard figure and allowed the yield to set the rate, not the rate to set the yield.

Thus we come to the question of how the Government can keeping saying that they are certain that the bank levy will yield £2.5 billion each year. It did not in its first year, when it hit £1.8 billion. The reason the Treasury team is continually having to tweak the rate is that it is not certain how much money it is going to yield.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

I agree absolutely. I saw clearly, in my city, the follow-through of that financial stimulus. It was followed through to the Scottish Government, and I give them credit for bringing forward some of the construction spending at that stage. We had more affordable homes built in 2009 than we had had for some years. I believe that the figure was 900 affordable homes, which is high for Edinburgh, but that has now plunged right down again. This was not sustained and we are back in the same cycle as we were in before. Such an approach can work, as we get the homes and the jobs, and we ensure that unemployment is not rising as fast as it otherwise would.

When Labour Members suggest stimulating the economy, Government Members invariably ask how we would pay for it. They say, “Oh, you are going to borrow yet more. That is absolutely shocking.” When we make any proposal on how we would fund it, we are immediately told, “You cannot possibly do that. You should not do that.” We are making a genuine proposal here. We have talked about it for several months, but it has not yet been taken up by the Government. The economy is still flatlining and we are seeing all the results of that in our local communities. So, yet again, we are justified in tabling this amendment.

We are constantly told about all the people who are going to go abroad if we do such and such a thing—we hear that banks are going to disappear off, to wherever—but there is not a great deal of evidence of that happening. It feels very much as if we are being blackmailed and as if powerful people are trying to say, “We will take our ball away. We are not going to play.” We have to be very clear that a lot of this does not actually happen in practice; indeed, there is evidence to suggest that the bankers did not leave the country during the period of the previous bonus levy. There is no evidence to suggest that they suddenly swanned off somewhere else. If we are serious about building and growing our economy, as we have to be, this measure will be one small part—it is not suddenly the answer to everything—of enabling us to get this economy going again. It will stop us from sitting on our hands and expecting that somehow to happen, because it will not.

[Mr Redwood]

I remind hon. Members that I am an adviser to an industrial company and to a small investment management business. I am not a tax adviser, so I feel able to participate in this debate.

I was interested in the Opposition amendment and it turns out to be rather disappointing, for a number of reasons. It asks the Government to produce a report

“on how the additional revenue…would be invested to create new jobs and tackle unemployment.”

As phrased, it does not actually ask for a report on how a bank payroll tax would work, although that is perhaps what Labour Members wanted, too. Interestingly, the Opposition have shifted from wanting a bank bonus tax—a tax originally described as a “one-off” and clearly aimed at very high earners in certain kinds of investment bank, which everybody loves to hate at the moment—to wanting in this amendment a general bank payroll tax. I ask them to think about what that means, because most of the people on the payrolls of our leading large banks are, of course, modestly remunerated. This payroll tax would give a further incentive to bank directors and managers to try to get rid of personnel they are employing, because if we tax something, we clearly do not like it. The Opposition say that they do not like payroll, so they are trying to tax payroll.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity to clarify the wording—[Interruption.] No, there is no “Ah ha” moment, I am afraid. The wording we have used reflects the wording used by the OBR to describe the temporary bank payroll tax. It is no more than that.

[Mr Redwood]

It is worth teasing these things out, because I think we have had confirmation from the Opposition that they have in mind a general payroll tax, which would hit people other than the very high earners in investment banks. The amendment does not say “a bonus tax for investment bankers”, for example; it says a “payroll tax”. One therefore has to assume it would affect conduct.

[Owen Smith]

With the greatest respect, either the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said or he is deliberately misrepresenting what I said—mischievously, I suggest. We were not intending to do anything other than replicate that which we have done previously, so a bonus tax is what we were talking about. The language adopted in the amendment is reflective of that used by the Government and the OBR—that is all.

[Mr Redwood]

Well, I think we are very grateful for that clarification. We await the details that, unfortunately, we did not get from the Opposition about how they would target the measure, whom they have in mind, how much those people would have to earn and how much bonus they would get. The point rests on perhaps a narrower base than the words in the amendment lead one to infer. One has to assume that the tax will lead banks to employ fewer people.

The tax that the Government have adopted also has consequences. They have decided to get extra money out of the banks by taxing the size of their balance sheets. I think the Government might be right that that is a slightly better way of doing things than taxing personnel costs because it is more general, but that too has adverse consequences. All taxation has adverse consequences as well as some positive uses. The Government tax encourages banks to shrink their balance sheets because they do not wish to pay too much tax. What does that mean in normal language? It means they want fewer deposits and less share capital and that they want to lend less money to people because the way to reduce the tax burden is to have less taxable capacity in the United Kingdom. The tax therefore has a cost. I do not disagree with what the Government are doing: I understand the awful financial situation that the country finds itself in and I can see how this tax is more popular than many others, but let us not pretend that these things are costless. At a time when we need more growth and more loans of a suitable kind to people who can afford to pay them back in order to create demand and more loans to smaller and medium-sized enterprises at a time when they need to grow, taxes on banks are not terribly helpful.

I am enough of a politician to know that banks are very unpopular and that it is an easy hit for politicians who want to improve their own popularity to take a position against the banks, so I am being something of a foolish hero by standing up and saying that not all banks are bad and that quite a lot of people who work for banks are perfectly decent people doing a decent job. The banking service that is supplied around the country to small and medium-sized enterprises and to you and me, Sir Roger, is very necessary, and sometimes it is well handled and well conducted.

There is a dreadful run of debate in this country that everything to do with the word “bank” is evil and wrong, that it serves the banks right and that everything has to be directed against them, but we have to work with the banks—the good, the bad and the indifferent—because we need them to be on the side of economic growth and recovery to tackle the very real problem that the Opposition have identified in the second part of their amendment—tackling unemployment. We need to get unemployment down, and one way of doing that is by having a strong banking sector working closely in partnership with the small and medium-sized enterprise sector and with those people who have a reasonable income and might want to borrow more to buy things and create demand.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

The right hon. Gentleman glosses over the fact that the banking system has two distinct components. There is the banking for ordinary people and small businesses and then there is the casino component, which is about gambling with vast sums of money—often our money—and often losing it by the billion. That is the bit of banking we are complaining about, not the retail banking that looks after our money and ordinary working people’s money.

[Mr Redwood]

If it were that easy to make the distinction and to close down or punish the one and reward or encourage the other, I am sure the outgoing Government would have done it. The fact that they did not implies that in office they realised the situation was far more complicated. When we consider the complications of a large conglomerate bank—as it happens the taxpayer should have a lot of knowledge about them because we are the forced owners or part-owners of two such banks—it is immediately obvious to any sensible analyst that the activities of the investment bank are deeply integrated with, and related to, those of the normal commercial bank; for example, in their service for small and medium-sized enterprises. A small or medium-sized export business may need forward currency cover or trade finance and credit, or it may have an investable surplus. It may need all kinds of services that go well beyond the basic banking that the hon. Gentleman was trying to describe—just having a current account to make payments and a simple savings account. The world is much more complicated than that. If we are to survive and compete in a global world with international trade, we need to be able to handle its requirements.

[Mr George Mudie (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I do not share the right hon. Gentleman’s confidence that the banks are so optimistic, and that they are so ambitious to provide loans that will get jobs for the million youngsters who are out of work. The Government signed up to Merlin scheme for loans to small businesses, but were badly let down by the banks who did not live up to their part of the agreement. This year’s Budget wheeze is the loan guarantee scheme, which is supposed to get jobs for youngsters. The Treasury Committee took evidence and accepts in its report that the scheme will not provide additional lending for firms; it is only a method for lowering current rates, so why is the right hon. Gentleman so confident?

[Mr Redwood]

I do not think I expressed any confidence on the subject at all. The hon. Gentleman, the Government and I are in agreement that past levels of lending have been inadequate. That is why the Government have come forward with yet another scheme to try to encourage more lending, which I should have thought everyone in the House would want them to do. If the hon. Gentleman wants to know why there has been too little lending in the last couple of years, there are two simple reasons. The first is that after the crash the banks were forcefully regulated not to lend more—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that is nonsense, but their problem is obvious. The banks were told by the regulator that they needed to hold more cash and capital relative to their lending; the only way they can do that, especially the nationalised ones, is to keep lending down. They are not in a position to raise more money because the taxpayer does not want to put more money into RBS at the moment, and I entirely agree with the Government’s view that we should not be doing so. There is thus a regulatory squeeze on the amount of lending.

The banks would say that the projects are not out there. I am not so sure. The hon. Gentleman and I probably know of financeable propositions on which we would like to see the banks rise to the challenge. We hope that will be possible with the new scheme, but under the Opposition amendment we would spend any revenue that might be raised from what they call a payroll tax, although it is apparently a bonus tax on new jobs and tackling unemployment. We do not know exactly how much they have in mind; the amount would probably be quite modest, as it was from their bonus tax. If the banks see another bonus tax coming in this climate, there will be even fewer bonuses to tax, but the Opposition may welcome that.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Is it not right that the people who caused financial problems and hardship for many families and created mass unemployment pay a fair amount of tax to compensate for the damage they did to the economy? Is that not exactly what the amendment would provide for?

[Mr Redwood]

Many people would think that the outgoing Government had a lot of responsibility for the crash, along with their professional advisers, the quangos and the Bank of England, who apparently did not see it coming. They had very light regulation in the lead-up to the credit crunch and then very tough regulation. [Interruption.] Labour Members feel there is some justice in my response, as they are getting very heated, but we are straying rather far from amendment 5.

The point of the amendment is that the Labour party wants to raise an unspecified amount by taxing unspecified people who apparently earn more than Labour thinks is good for them. The Opposition would spend that on youth measures, and they want the Government to come back with a report on how that money could be spent.

My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), who rightly said that she could support a bank levy to try and get the deficit down, was speaking sense, but this, as she will have realised, is not the proposition of the Labour Opposition. They do not want to get the deficit down. They want to find another pot of money to increase spending. I am with them in their aim of reducing youth unemployment. We will make much more progress in reducing youth unemployment if we have stronger banks able to finance a more vigorous recovery. I urge the Government to work more strongly on that. The more money they take off the banks in taxes, however tempting that is, the less the banks will be able to lend to people to get the recovery going, so the proposal could be self-defeating.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

I have often made the same point myself. I was on the Government Benches at the time of the so-called financial crisis and the run-up to it, and I do not remember any demands whatsoever from the then Opposition for us to introduce heightened regulation of the banking system. It is very easy to be wise in retrospect.

[Mr Redwood]

I think the hon. Gentleman has experienced some memory loss on that point, because I can remember both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties pointing out—as I did, too—that the borrowing was excessive and needed to be reined in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

Thank you, Sir Roger. That gives me the opportunity to repeat, for those unable to hear because of the conversations, my point about the harsh reality of the Budget, which has done nothing to give Britain the jobs and growth we desperately need, and about how it fails the fairness test. It has done nothing to help support families and pensioners on modest and middle incomes. We will discuss that further tomorrow so I shall not dwell on it now. It would, of course, be outwith the scope of the new clauses. I shall only say that families are already finding out just what the Government’s decisions will mean for their household budgets. As we will hear, businesses are also now finding out that the botched Budget makes no economic sense for them either.

There was a time when people might have given the Chancellor some credit for his strategic brain. Some on middle incomes and small businesses might even have given him the benefit of the doubt on economic policy, notwithstanding our many warnings about cuts that go too far and too fast. They might have given him the benefit of the doubt even if they did not completely agree with everything he was doing. But how times change. The Chancellor has had several weeks of torrid headlines—The Mirror: “Half-baked Tory tax a mistake-and-bake from Osborne and co”; The Sun: “PM David Cameron is urged to show leadership over pasty-gate”; The Guardian: “‘Pasty tax’ is the last thing people need”; the Evening Standard: “Heston says pasty tax will stop artisan bakers earning a crust”; and even “Tax on beloved Cornish pasties sparks furore in Britain” in USA Today and “‘Pasty tax’ row heats up for British PM” on the al-Jazeera website.

[Mr Redwood]

Is the hon. Lady at all worried that the fine reputation of the pasty will be damaged by so many MPs trying to associate themselves with it and get their ratings up as a consequence?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I am sure that the pasty industry is looking on as we speak and will want to know exactly which MPs have gone and sampled the local delicacies in whichever part of the UK they happen to live.

Those weeks of torrid headlines have led us to the current situation. There is now a pasty petition, and there has apparently been a pasty summit, while Greggs is planning a pasty protest march on Downing street to plead with the Prime Minister to step in personally and kill off the hated pasty tax.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 16th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

When the Government proposed VAT on pasties, did they feel they needed to do that to protect other VAT revenue on takeaways from European challenge? Is that what is in the Chief Secretary’s mind?

[Danny Alexander]

No, that is not what is in our mind. It is one of a number of anomalies in the VAT system that we addressed in the Budget, although it is not actually a matter contained in the Bill. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the comments of, for example, the National Federation of Fish Friers, which makes the point that small independent fish shops, of which there are thousands around the country located in the constituency of every Member, have for many years been charged VAT on sales whereas other retailers have not. We are seeking to correct that anomaly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

This Finance Bill is so flawed, so unfair and so inadequate a response to the problems now facing the country that I am surprised that the Chief Secretary does not show a little more embarrassment in presenting it to the House this afternoon. This Government are presiding over an economy beset by rising unemployment, a slump in private sector investment and billions of pounds of unplanned extra Government borrowing, yet he comes to this House with a Finance Bill that does nothing for growth, nothing to get more young people back to work and nothing to help small businesses struggling to stay afloat, and which instead asks millions of hard-pressed families and pensioners to pay more so that millionaires can pay less.

It is less than two years since this Government took office, yet they have already sent our economy into reverse. Business and consumer confidence have drained away, and growth has sputtered and stalled with no net increase in our national output over the past 15 months, and with wages and incomes stagnant or falling even as the cost of food, fuel and fares rise and rise. The Office for National Statistics confirms that last year saw the sharpest annual fall in real disposable income for 35 years. The private sector has been unable to fill the gaping hole left by deep and painful public sector cuts, and as a result overall redundancies have been running at a rate of one a minute since this Government took office.

[Mr Redwood]

What tax cut does the hon. Lady think would do most to promote economic recovery?

[Rachel Reeves]

I believe that a temporary cut in VAT back down to 17.5% and a national insurance holiday for all small businesses taking on new workers are the way to put the economy back on track to recovery.

Amendment of the Law

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Wednesday 21st March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I fully support the Government’s aim. We need to earn our way out of the fiscal crisis, the massive over-borrowing and the large deficits. I also fully support their aim to get more money from taxing the rich, and we need a tax break for everybody else. We need a stimulus to demand and growth in this country and it is welcome that, given the difficult figures before the Chancellor today and the situation he inherited, he has managed to find a way of cutting tax for most people. That will be welcome relief from the relentless pressures on private budgets that hon. Members and their constituents have been experiencing as we try to climb out of the crisis.

It would be helpful to remind the House of the general shape of the five-year programme to try to get the deficit down. We want to get to a position in which we are adding less to the new borrowing. It is not that we are paying off the debt or dealing with the nation’s mortgage and credit card; we are just not flexing them quite as much as before. The Government have said that, over the five-year period of the planned coalition Government, they wish to increase current public spending by £90 billion and tax revenues by £174 billion a year by the fifth year of the programme, compared with the last Labour year. The House can see that, on most normal ways of looking at the situation, the plan is for the heavy lifting of getting the deficit down to be done by a very large increase in tax revenues.

Those tax revenues best roll in if the economy grows reasonably rapidly. The more quickly the economy grows, the easier and less hurtful it is to get money out of people; the less the economy grows, the more the choices become difficult.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman says that the heavy lifting will be done by the rise in tax, but does he accept that there is a ratio of 4:1 in the amount that will come from cuts in public spending and benefits to the amount that will come from tax rises?

[Mr Redwood]

I have just given the figures—they are taken from past and current Red Books—and the hon. Gentleman must make his judgment. I am giving the House my interpretation. Most people who see spending going up by £90 billion and revenue going up by £174 billion will say that the increase in revenue is doing the job of bringing the deficit down. If he compares that with Labour’s plans for even bigger increases in public spending, he can make a case. He may also have in mind—we have debated this in the House before—whether the cuts are real or not. Some programmes will experience real cuts. We know that because there is a much slower rate of growth in cash spending than anything this country has been used to for a very long time.

If debt interest takes too much of the extra money, and if welfare benefits take too much, other things will obviously be squeezed more, which could lead to very unpleasant consequences. That is even more reason why the Government are right to try to get the deficit down, so that we do not keep on increasing the debt at such a huge rate, and why they are right to keep official interest rates low—that helps with the cost of the deficit. It is also why they are right that we need to earn our way out of the situation by getting many more people back into decent jobs, so that they are paid more in work than they are paid on benefit. Surely the whole House can agree on that and share that aspiration.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

We obviously want to get more people into jobs, but will the right hon. Gentleman comment on something the Prime Minister said in Prime Minister’s questions? He said that 600,000 new private sector jobs had been created since the election, but a year ago he said that 500,000 new private sector jobs had been created since the election, and three months before that he said that 500,000 new jobs had been created since the election. Is not the rate of creation of new jobs slowing down massively under this Government?

[Mr Redwood]

We all know from the output and jobs figures that the economy did not do as well at the end of last year as it had done at other times since the Government were elected, but we also know that the forecasts are that growth will now pick up. I am sure the hon. Lady will welcome that and join me in having a serious debate on what this Parliament can do to make it more likely that my constituents and hers have jobs, and more likely that they are better-paid jobs.

The question whether real public spending is falling or not depends on the rate of inflation in the public sector, so I urge again that we take advantage of the tough times. There is a two-year pay freeze for public sector workers, and the Government say that they are buying things more cheaply throughout the public sector. In addition, there are recessionary conditions in Europe and other parts of the world. If we take advantage of those things, it should mean that we do not have to have big real cuts in spending, because we will have that £90 billion per annum to spend by the fifth year of the strategy.

However, we should focus today on taxation, which is clearly what the Leader of the Opposition wanted to focus on. I do not think he listened to the Budget speech or the numbers he was told, because my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made it very clear that he had come up with a series of targeted measures to tax the very rich more than if he had not made the changes. That is fine by me, and I would hope it is fine by the Labour party, but the Leader of the Opposition seemed to say that it was not fair, because some rich people would still get away with it. However, if we get enough or more out of them overall, is that not worth while? Surely even Labour would accept that if we raise rates too high, the very rich go away—they find ways around paying the tax or do not pay.

Labour in opposition does not take that seriously enough, but the former Chancellor and Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), took it very seriously when he was in office. As Chancellor, he had the option of putting the 40% rate up to 45% or 50%, or the 83% that Labour had when previously in office, but he never chose to do it. I wish he were here today. If he were, I would ask him, “Why not?” I think his answer to Labour groups around the country is, reportedly, that had he raised it above 40%, he would have raised less money in taxation rather than more. Naturally he wanted to get more out of the rich—on that I agree with him entirely—but the way to do that was to keep the rate at a sensible level.

The Opposition should study the figures for tax receipts. If they look in the new Red Book, they will see that self-assessment income tax is plunging this year. That is exactly the problem that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has to tackle. Under Labour, self-assessment taxation at 40%—the then rate—brought in £22.5 billion at its best, before it made a mess of the economy. The forecast for 2010-11 out-turn is £22 billion, and the forecast for the 2011-12 out-turn—soon to be seen—is only £20 billion. That means that the Treasury now expects a 10% reduction in self-assessment income tax receipts, which is where many of the high earners congregate with their complicated tax affairs. Those, then, who think that a 50p rate raises a lot more money have a lot of explaining to do given that we are in the middle of this collapse.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Redwood]

I am sorry but I will not get any more time, so I am afraid I cannot.

If the Opposition study the Red Book, they will also see that when the 45p rate is firmly up and running, there will be a surge in revenues compared with the current bitter experience with 50p. Self-assessment income tax is scheduled to rise to £28.5 billion by the last year of this Parliament, showing that, according to the Treasury’s own model, growth is expected. However, I think we will see a much disrupted experience of tax collection now, because if we give advance warning of a new lower rate, we might have a problem in the year before, but we will have to see—we will watch with great interest.

Overall, however, the House should note that there are difficulties with getting the massive increase in taxation from the country which everyone wants. According to the current receipts table, there has been slippage every year in the current receipts forecast under national accounts taxes compared with the autumn statement. Some of that, of course, is the result of the policy change on lower tax designed to help people—we welcome that very much—but we have to understand that it is very difficult to get as much tax out of the economy as many MPs would seem to like.

The Government are right to want a Budget for aspiration; they are right to want a Budget that allows us to earn our way out of this situation; and they are right that we need to make it more worthwhile to work. I hope that they will reinforce that message in future Budgets. Since the 1970s, in which time we have had Labour Governments as well as Conservative and coalition Governments, no Government have ever been able to raise more than 38% of the total national income from taxes. I am sure that Labour would like to try it, but actually the record shows that Conservatives have taxed a bit more as a percentage of national income than Labour—normally because they have had to clear up the mess, the debts and the deficits that they have inherited.

There is a natural ceiling on how much we can get out of people in a free economy. When we have a footloose international economy, it is all too easy for the people with talent and money—Labour might not like them—to go somewhere else, spend their money somewhere else and invest in jobs somewhere else. We desperately need every job that we can get, and we desperately need the good will of those with money, talent, entrepreneurial flare and ability. We also need the money of some of those who do not have any of the above—we still want them here and to ensure that they spend their money here.

The Budget therefore has to concentrate on the crucial issues of how we reward aspiration and generate true prosperity. A much greater man than I, I think, said, “You cannot tax a country into prosperity.” This country is not short of taxes. Governments have been incredibly inventive in finding all sorts of ways of taking money off people. They are taxed again and again and again—on income, on spending, on savings, on capital gain. There are endless taxes. We are not short of taxes. We do not need new taxes. We need a growing economy and to persuade people to pay the taxes that we have put in place trying to pay for the public services.

We want great public services but we need to understand the language of priorities. I think those priorities are shared across the House. Both Labour and Conservative Members would choose to make health and education their top priorities for public spending. The last Government certainly did that with large sums of money, and this Government are doing it with what money they can find. However, I also hope we would agree—this is more difficult when Labour are in opposition—that we need reform of those public services so that every pound we spend is a pound well spent. We need to increase productivity and quality, and get more for our money, because everyone has to accept that times are hard and the amount of money available will be limited.

The Front-Bench team need to do all they said in the Budget to promote growth; they need to do more to sort out the banks because until we have properly functioning and competitive banks—super-charged to lend against good projects—we will not go as quickly as we would like; and they need to ensure that every pound they spend in the public service is well spent. That is the way to earn our way out of the crisis and into prosperity. We cannot tax our way into prosperity but we can earn our way there.

Living Standards

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Having highlighted the anomaly with one and two-earner families regarding child benefit withdrawal, does the Labour party have a suggested solution to sort it out?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am looking to the Government Front-Bench team for their solution, given the words that we have heard from Ministers over the past couple of days. The Labour party supports child benefit as a universal benefit. At the very least, the Government must iron out the anomaly that means that families earning £84,000 a year can still get child benefit, while a one-earner family on £43,000 cannot.

One month tomorrow, on Good Friday, 212,000 families stand to lose up to £4,000 because of changes to the working tax credit. The Government will say that people need only to increase the number of hours they work from 16 to 24. If they were in touch with working families and businesses, they would know that this is simply not an option for many people because the jobs are not there, and employers are laying people off and cutting hours, not increasing them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Labour party for choosing this important subject for this evening’s debate, because it is right that we should debate living standards. It is quite brave of the Labour party to choose this topic, because there was a sharp decline in living standards in the last years of the Labour Administration, but it is also true that there has been a further decline in the first 18 months of the coalition Government. It takes time to turn these things around. The main reason why living standards have continued to fall in the past 18 months is that inflation has been too high. If time permits, I wish to suggest some things Ministers could do in the drive against rising prices so that we can relieve some of the pressure on our constituents.

I agree with Labour and colleagues on the Government Benches that we are here above all to ensure the better prosperity of the people we represent. None of us wishes to see their constituents’ livings standards fall, and it is right that today we should consider, on an Opposition motion, how we might strengthen and improve living standards. I also agree with Labour that we need to debate jobs and growth and am delighted that the motion starts off with that. I am sure that Ministers on the Treasury Bench are well aware that, although they have introduced some measures, they have not yet done enough to ensure a rapid, strong and continuing recovery. We all look forward to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor adding to the range of policies and instruments that he can adopt to improve the chances of more rapid and sustained growth.

Again, it is a matter of common agreement across the Chamber that growth is a good thing, that it will mean more jobs, rising living standards and higher incomes and that it will bring with it more tax revenue. More tax revenue is much needed, because the Chancellor and his Front-Bench colleagues have decided to increase public spending in cash terms every year of the five-year period, which will not be easy to finance, given the very large running deficit and accumulated debt they inherited. Contrary to what some people in the media have said, the debt is still rising day by day because we are still running a large deficit.

I was hoping to say something good about the parts of the motion where Labour highlighted one of the problems people have with one of the Chancellor’s proposals. As many Labour Members and others have pointed out, with the wish to make richer people pay a little more by withdrawing child benefit there is the problem that those who are better off might in some cases get a better deal than those who are worse off. None of us likes that, and I think that there is common ground on that across the House. It is not a new discovery that Labour has highlighted today. I was hoping that it might have a contribution or a solution, because we know that the Treasury is thinking about whether the problem can be dealt with, but when I asked, thinking that I might find something I could support, answer came there none.

[Ian Austin]

What advice would the right hon. Gentleman give to a constituent of his, earning perhaps £42,000 or £42,500, who has three children, is working hard, getting on in life and wants to do better, but who is offered a pay rise that would take them into the 40p tax band? They would then face the difficult choice between taking a promotion that they have worked hard to get and losing thousands of pounds in child benefit. What would he advise them to do?

[Mr Redwood]

That is a very good example of the problem one can get into, and that is why I wish my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench every success in dealing with what we can all see is a problem, but I am not recommending to them that they give up and say that somebody on £200,000 a year should still be able to get full child benefit. That is not the right answer, and I should hope that Labour might sympathise with that proposition and agree, but I am grateful that some Opposition Members are now coming round to my view that high marginal rates of tax and of benefit withdrawal, at all levels of income, are a disincentive.

Just as Government Front Benchers are rightly trying to tackle the very serious problem at the lower end, perhaps with some support from Labour, they should have some sympathy for people in the middle of the income scale, where the situation can be equally unpleasant and difficult for families struggling to meet their bills. Sometimes Opposition Members forget that, although people in my constituency tend to have a higher average income than many of the average incomes in their constituencies, my constituents’ housing costs, their travel costs and other factors in their cost of living mean that they need higher incomes in order to have the same living standard as those whose houses are half the price or less, because housing is a very big component.

The Labour party has rightly said that it would be wonderful if we could tax the banks more, and I again find myself in agreement with that. It is an immediately attractive proposition. We all know that banks are pretty unpopular, and we like to think of them as very rich, so it would be good if we could tax them more. Unfortunately, Labour is wrong to suggest that the Government have just offered another tax break to some banks by cutting the marginal rate of corporation tax. The reason we are getting so little tax out of them is nothing to do with a small drop in the corporation tax rate; it is that two of the biggest banks, Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds HBOS, are loss-making, so it does not matter what corporation tax rate we set, because they are not going to pay a penny of it. That is a disgrace, but it is where we have got to because of the disasters and problems in bank management over recent years.

Worse still, we are in the position whereby, if those banks do start to make money—it is true that the losses have been much reduced in the past year and they might start to make money—they will not be about to pay any tax, because they have such huge inherited losses from the period under Labour when they plunged into massive deficit and got into a disastrous position.

[Richard Fuller]

My right hon. Friend is making very good points about the importance of companies being profitable so that they can pay tax, but when it comes to bankers and high earners paying taxes does he think that it is more important that the tax take is as high as it can be, or that we have a headline-grabbing marginal tax rate? Which is more important: the take or the rate?

[Mr Redwood]

I am very much of the view that we want a higher tax take, and I favour taking the tax from the people with the money, the rich, and from the companies with the money, rather than from the people who do not have it. That is what I believe, and I would hope that that again was common ground. The way we do so is by charging a rate that people are prepared to stay and pay, because the danger is that if we set the rates too high, people do not stay or they do not pay; they find clever accountants and lawyers, do less, invest less, risk less or go. It is the same with banks: if we get the rate wrong for banks, instead of getting more money out of them, we get less.

In 1979 when Labour had had a strongly socialist Government, they left office with a marginal income tax rate—in which some current Opposition Members would take pride—of 83p in the pound. In those days the top 1% of income tax payers contributed just 11% of the total income tax take, because the rich had either gone or had clever arrangements to avoid paying tax. When the Conservatives brought the rate down to 40%, not only did the amount of money paid by the rich go up, and the real amount that they paid go up significantly, but the proportion of total income tax that they paid more than doubled. Surely that is a desirable outcome, and it is the same with banks: we need to find a way of taxing them.

My first recommendation to the Chancellor for his Budget is to sort out the banks. We need to create some working banks out of the RBS framework, get them out there in the market, sell them off, get them into a profitable state without all the back history of tax losses, and create new entities that can trade properly and lend money for the recovery, and then we can get some tax revenue out of them. I hope that Labour Members might agree with that proposition. We then need to tackle the problem of inflation, which has been rising too rapidly.

I am glad that those on the Front Bench have done something about council tax bills—I hope that Labour councils will join Conservative councils in keeping those bills down, because they are very difficult for many people to afford—and have started to do some work on fuel prices, although they are still extremely high. We could do more to get water and energy bills down. I recommend that we allow more competition in those industries, particularly water. In the energy industries, we need more private sector-led investment, with an emphasis on cheaper power, which is needed to tackle fuel poverty and inflation and to secure an industrial recovery. The Government need to recognise that energy is now usually the biggest cost in many industries and, instead of favouring dear power, follow competition and private investment policies that will promote cheaper energy.

Oral Answers to Questions

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, but let me be clear: as she will know, youth unemployment in her constituency peaked in December 2009—it is actually lower today than it was then. No one should be complacent about youth unemployment, but she should recognise, as the right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) did, that youth unemployment is not a problem that this Government created, and that it is a long-term challenge and grew even when the economy was booming. We are taking steps—such as the youth contract and boosting the number of apprenticeship places—that will benefit every constituency in the country, including hers.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

When will we see more of the details of the credit easing scheme and what is the Minister’s forecast of the monthly draw-down for the rest of this year?

[Mr Hoban]

We are working with banks on the details behind the national loan guarantee scheme. We have set aside £20 billion to enable the rates that are charged to small businesses to fall by up to 1%. The utilisation of the scheme will very much be driven by the demand from businesses for debt finance.

Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I will make a little progress, because we know that many Members want to speak. I will try to give way again later.

Although many of our constituents are very fearful about the future, not everyone is looking to the future with fear and trepidation—not for all the question of how their money will last until the end of the month, or whether they can afford to heat their homes and eat three meals a day. For the past week, we have been hearing stories of banks preparing to pay bonuses to a few hundred senior employees amounting to hundreds of thousands, even millions of pounds in another multi-billion pound bonus season.

The Opposition believe in rewarding hard work and encouraging enterprise that contributes to the prosperity of the economy, but this is about fairness, responsibility and proportion. It is about the difference between rewards for success and rewards for failure.

When millions of families are struggling to find work, businesses are having their loan applications turned down and banks are continuing to rely on taxpayers’ hard-earned money for their very survival, the vast majority of people in all our constituencies find the idea of such sums being paid to a small number of individuals unacceptable. People rightly feel that we did not bail out the banking system to perpetuate a business-as-usual model or to pay big bonuses when ordinary workers are losing jobs. Surely we bailed out the banks to protect the businesses and families that depend on banks serving and supporting the wider economy.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady explain why Labour Ministers accepted and approved such grotesque contracts for RBS, so that they now personify payment for failure?

[Rachel Reeves]

We introduced a bank bonus tax to get some money back from the banks. The Government refused to go ahead with it and, instead, gave the banks a tax cut this year. That is not acceptable, and that is what the motion is about.

While banks seemingly return to the business-as-usual model, aided and abetted by the current Government, last week the Office for National Statistics published another set of dreadful unemployment numbers. Total unemployment is now at its highest since the summer of 1994. Women’s unemployment is the highest it has been since autumn 1987. Youth unemployment is now the highest since comparable records began. The number of young people claiming jobseeker’s allowance for six months or more has doubled in just 12 months.

Those figures on their own are shocking enough and should be sufficient to end all debate and drive the Chief Secretary and the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), to urgent action. However, most worrying is the fact that, on every measure, and according to every forecast and to the Government’s Office for Budget Responsibility, unemployment is set not to fall, but to get worse.

The Office for Budget Responsibility’s projection, alongside last year’s autumn statement, showed unemployment rising to 2.8 million this year. The OECD expects unemployment to rise to 9% in 2013. If unemployment continues to rise at the rate that it has done in the past six months, it will reach 3 million this summer. The economy may well be headed back to recession—we will hear the grim reality on Wednesday.

However, it is clear that, although the situation is now perilously close to tipping point, and the Government’s failures are mounting, they could still take action. Yet since taking office in 2010, the backfiring of their attempts to cut too far and too fast has added a shocking £158 billion in extra borrowing.

Connecting Europe Facility

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Thursday 19th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

My hon. Friend’s point is outside the topic of the debate this afternoon. He is aware of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s comments and assurances on that matter.

As I have said, at home, we have taken tough decisions to tackle our deficit and demonstrated leadership. We expect exactly the same leadership on spending in Europe from the European Commission, but whether on the annual budget or the financial framework, such leadership has been completely lacking. Instead of finding ways to cut spending or to drive better value for money, the Commission, through the connecting Europe facility, proposes to increase spending on transport, energy infrastructure and telecommunications by 400% as part of a multi-annual financial framework that increases payments by more than €100 billion over its duration.

Just as at home, where we have prioritised spending on growth while tackling the deficit, the Government would like a higher proportion of a restrained EU budget spent to promote sustainable growth. The proposal does not achieve that objective. We are arguing that spending should be lower, and that what spending remains should be focused on areas that offer genuine added value across the EU.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

A number of people who have written to me condemning the High Speed 2 project have alleged that Britain has to build it under the EU network ruling. Will the Minister confirm that Britain remains free to make its own decision on whether to have High Speed 2?

[Mr Hoban]

My right hon. Friend is, as is often the case, spot on. There is no requirement under the proposal for us to build High Speed 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Leslie]

It is important that the European Commission, and the eurozone in particular, focus on getting economic growth. My simple point is that it is not happening. An austerity-only approach is being taken, but it is not working, just as it is not working in this country. Of course we have to ensure that we reduce the proposed budget increases—we do not disagree with that—but there are ways to stimulate an economy within that envelope, including through a phased approach towards the European spending review process. That is my point. It is the glaring omission from the Government’s plans so far.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the shadow Minister bring us up to date with Labour thinking on the IMF having more money to lend to save the euro? Does Labour think that it would be a good idea because it would promote growth, or a bad idea because it would damage the British budget?

[Chris Leslie]

We are all waiting to see what proposals come forward. The Chancellor has said that he will come to Parliament and let us have a say on many of these things. Indeed, perhaps the Minister can help us out with the timing of those proposals—[Interruption.] If he would care to listen to my questions, perhaps he could also tell us when we will get the Bill to enact the European financial stabilisation mechanism permanent bail-out fund. We are all waiting for that. The eurozone countries are supposed to be rolling together the European financial stability facility and the EFSM into that permanent arrangement, but as I understand it we will have to legislate for that. Will he tell us when that will happen, because it is related to this question about potential IMF funding? We need clarity from the Government—and from the IMF as well.

Banking Commission Report

Lord Redwood Excerpts

Monday 19th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Will the Chancellor take urgent action with RBS to create three new competitor banks from its assets and liabilities so that we can have real competition and more promotion of growth?

[Mr Osborne]

I have set out our view as the largest shareholder of RBS. We have to be careful of the shadow director rules and the like, but I was very clear in my statement that we expect and hope to see RBS shrink the size of its investment bank and focus on the UK and its UK customers. That is our proposal as an RBS shareholder. Of course, the question of how to dispose of our shares in RBS, which might arise in future, is one that we will address at the time.