Finance Bill
Debate between Lord Beamish and John Redwood(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jones
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not understand why a low-paid worker in South Stanley in my constituency who has worked hard all his or her life should be given no tax relief or assistance and should pay their taxes just to give a tax relief and perk to individuals who not only might be able to pay for care, but who have an advantage over them. We should seek to ensure equal access to health care.
I understand what has been said about waiting lists and the health service, but when I was elected in 2001 my constituency contained two old hospitals, one of which—the old workhouse—was a disgrace. We now have two new hospitals, thanks to a Labour Government. The hon. Member for Mole Valley mentioned hip and knee replacements, and I can tell him that the industrial legacy of a mining community meant that my area had a long waiting list; it was not uncommon for people to wait for more than two years. I recall people coming to my surgery arguing about how they could get up the list any faster. Waiting lists have more or less been abolished over the intervening 10-year period, which is testament to the changes the previous Labour Government made and the investment we put in. Investment in the health service should be about ensuring equal access to care, not about giving a tax perk to a very small section of the population—the less than 5% who actually have private health insurance—as this proposal seeks to do.
Mr Redwood
I would be more persuaded by this argument if the Labour party had, when in office, prevented the rich from buying the health care they wanted when they wanted it. The truth is that neither the Labour party in office, nor the coalition Government, have had any intention of preventing the rich from using their power and wealth to get the health care they want. The new clause is a measure to enable people who are not that rich to be able to do so.
Mr Jones
The facts do not bear that out, and I shall return to that point in a moment. If people wish to spend their money on health care, that is entirely up to them—I am not opposed to that. What I am saying is that I and others should not be subsidising that choice. We should be putting the money, as the Labour Government did, into ensuring that the general population have access to good-quality NHS care and do not have to worry about the cost.
Mr Redwood
That may have been the case in the past, but what we are interested in is the new clause.
The answer to the hon. Member for Hartlepool is that no, I cannot tell him that. It is not my new clause and I have not researched the matter. I was about to say that I would be more likely to vote for it if a case could be made on the money involved. It seems to me that it would be a good-value purchase if the savings on health care that it generated for the NHS were considerable. We need to balance the two things—we need to know what the revenue loss would be, based on a sensible estimate of take-up, and what the savings to the NHS would be.
The Labour party has to accept that it is not a one-sided matter. The whole point of the scheme is that there would be cost savings to the NHS. That money going into the NHS could then be spent on other people and other treatment. The NHS may still have to do the really difficult things for the people involved, but there could still be an overall benefit both to them and to the NHS if the extra money coming through the private sector led to extra care.
The fundamental mistake that we have heard from the Opposition tonight in their approach to these issues—although it was not the mistake of many Labour Ministers—is the idea that the resources to be provided are finite, to be used either in the private sector or in the public sector. The whole idea, surely, is that we need more resources, more trained people, more treatments, more supplies and more medical activity, because people are living longer, they need more health treatments and the population is growing for a variety of reasons.
As some of my hon. Friends have said, the one big gap between Britain and our European partners, which are normally the example held out by the Labour party, is the amount of private sector money that goes into health in Britain. It is a considerably smaller proportion than in countries such as Germany or France or the Scandinavian countries. If Labour Members are interested in the squeezed middle, they would be well advised to consider any scheme that might help to increase or release private sector money in health in a way that creates more resources, more medically trained people, and more medical treatment.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Debate between Lord Beamish and John Redwood(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Redwood
Yes, I think we could, which is why I made that recommendation well before the credit crunch occurred. In ’06 and ’07, it was obvious to me and to some other commentators that things were getting out of control—indeed, it was quite common for Opposition parties in this House to say they thought there was too much credit about. I went a bit further and said that could be remedied by changing the way we regulated the banks. It was quite wrong to allow a bank to extend more credit when it only had a 4% tier 1 capital ratio. I remember that when I was a financial regulator, we lived in an era when banks needed twice or three times that amount of capital to be acceptable to the regulator. There was a clear diminution in standards at a crucial time, which fuelled the credit binge.
Mr Kevan Jones
I know that the right hon. Gentleman sometimes speaks at odds with his party, and he talked earlier about historical references. Was it not his party’s Government under Margaret Thatcher who deregulated the mortgage market, and is it not the case that up until the recent banking crisis hit, his party’s Front Benchers were talking about lighter regulation of the banking sector, not more regulation?
Mr Redwood
The Front-Bench team and I were at one on this issue: we were saying that what was needed were better regulation and less regulation. The Government were regulating too many things badly. As I have just explained, they were regulating mortgage banks in a way that allowed all, or at least several, of them to be crippled and caused a great many problems. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong about Baroness Thatcher: much stricter controls over cash and capital were imposed throughout her period in office, and, of course, no major bank went down during that period. The same cannot be said of 2007-10, when the requirements were much laxer, as I highlighted in the report, and when we ended up with banks going down.
We are not here to debate past regulation, however; we are here to debate taxation. My purpose in sketching the history of this tragic situation is to express solidarity with all those who agree with the public mood, which is that we want to get a bigger return out of the banks, whatever we may think are the reasons why they are in their present position, but it is also to remind the House of a very important and salient fact, which is that two of the biggest banks are wholly or partially in state ownership or control. We are therefore talking about taxing ourselves in no small measure.
The issue before Ministers is a little more complicated than the Labour spokesman has suggested, because there are two ways in which we can get cash out of the banks: one is to tax them now on their stream of revenue, or their assets and liabilities in the case of the bank levy tax; the other is to move more quickly to sell off those assets back into private sector ownership and, I hope, proper private sector risk taking. If we are to get the maximum receipt, we do not want to be taking too much money out of the banks in the short term by way of taxation, because for every £1 of tax we take out of them, we lose £5, £10 or £15, depending on the multiple we sell them on when we come to sell them.
European Union Bill
Debate between Lord Beamish and John Redwood(13 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Redwood
Withdrawal from the common fisheries policy was not in the manifesto, although it might have been in the personal manifestos of some of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I gave it as an example because I believe it has a great deal of cross-party support. Most people think the common fisheries policy is extremely badly run and is not in the interests of the fish or the fishermen. Casting all those dead fish back into the sea is not my idea of conservation and it does not bring cheap fish to the fish market either, so it does not seem to be good news.
Successive Governments have always said that they quite agree with those of us who make such points, but they have never managed to negotiate a better deal. Would it not be wonderful if the Government said, “If we cannot negotiate a better deal next year, we will use British parliamentary sovereignty to pull out of the CFP”? I would like to do that and I do not think it would be tantamount to leaving the European Union. It would be pretty cross, but it would probably do a deal with us because it would be more embarrassing to have a sovereign Parliament taking unilateral legislative action than to do a deal. I hope the EU would do a deal; it would be sensible for it to do so.
If we are not prepared at some point to assert our power, we lose our sovereignty. Just as the Crown lost its sovereignty, became the Crown in Parliament and eventually lost practically all its real powers, so this Parliament is losing its powers. If it goes on losing them, without sensible provision being made of the kind proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone and without at some point standing up for a better deal for Britain, this Parliament, too, will no longer be sovereign.
Mr Kevan Jones
I congratulate the European Scrutiny Committee on its excellent report. I commend it for the clarity with which it looked at the Bill and for the evidence it took. I concur with my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) that it was disappointing that the Foreign Secretary did not deem it necessary to come before the Committee to explain why this Bill is so important.
Basically, the Bill is a dog’s breakfast. It is full of contradictions. On the one hand, it tries to constrain the sovereignty of Parliament by committing future Parliaments to referendums; on the other, through clause 18 it tries to put on the statute book support for parliamentary sovereignty. Clause 18 makes no difference whatever. That is the important point to be made here, and one that was made in the excellent European Scrutiny Committee report.
The reason for the Bill and for clause 18 was evident in some of the earlier contributions, particularly in the speech of the hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke), who is no longer in his place. It is to placate the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative party—something that it is completely failing to do, judging by the smiles on the faces of some Opposition Members and by some of the earlier contributions.