Author: johnredwood

Questions the BBC need to ask to show balance on the EU

September 11, 2015 86 Comments

The BBC will I trust wish to be fair in the long run up to the EU referendum. We know they have a list of questions to ask to assist the stay in campaign, as we hear them regularly on radio and tv. Just to help them I am going to suggest some other questions they need to ask to show balance.

Let’s first take the case of interviews of business leaders. They nearly always ask for comments on the possible damage they think exit might do, but rarely ask about the gains. They could ask

Which countries would you like the UK to negotiate a free trade deal with on exit, as we would be free to do so? (The EU has no deal with the USA, China, India etc)

How much more could you export to markets like the USA, India and China if the UK was free to have its own free trade agreements?

Which EU laws, taxes  and regulations would you like a UK government to amend or repeal for business at home and with countries outside the EU, on exit?

Let’s then take the case of interviews with people from public sector organisations. The BBC is normally keen to see these bodies receive more money from government, as it usually aligns with public service rather than with taxpayers. It could ask all of them

If the UK leaves the EU how would you like the £10 billion we save from no longer having to pay a net contribution to the EU to be spent? Would you prefer it to be added to public sector budgets rather than offered as a tax cut?

If the UK stays in the EU, do you think domestic budgets should be cut as the EU budget grows and demands more UK cash?

Let’s take the case of interviews with representatives of the EU government, and with political parties in favour of staying in on current terms.

They should be asked

Do you agree with the 5 Presidents of the EU that rapid progress now needs to be made with economic, monetary, capital markets, banking and political union?

What should the UK’s relationship be with the Euro area and its emerging political union, given the fact that the UK is not about to join the Euro?

If other interviewees are also going to brought into the EU debate as most business people are they could ask

Which taxes would you most like cut when we no longer have to pay £10 billion a year into the EU?

I noticed this morning, once again the Today programme business section was in full propaganda mode despite Bernard Jenkin’s excellent critique of them on Tuesday. During a piece on the success of Aston Martin and the UK motor industry they had to ask how could Aston and the industry do so well with the uncertainty overhanging them about the UK’s membership of the EU! The interviewee rightly ignored this and talked about the excellence of Aston’s people.

Meeting with Education Minister on fair funding

September 10, 2015 0 Comments

Yesterday I met with Mr Gyimah, the Education Minister. I repeated to him the problems Wokingham schools face from receiving very low levels of pupil funding compared to the national average. I asked for an assurance that the new government, like the Coalition in its later period, is committed to reducing the large gap between the worst and best funded local education area schools and will make more money available to Wokingham schools. I reminded him that this year Wokingham had not received much from the additional cash the Treasury supplied to start to tackle this problem.

The Minister assured me the government did wish to do more to sort out this problem. He said they were currently consulting and may well adopt a different formula or system for allocating future money to LEAs that receive the least under current arrangements. He requested further evidence from Wokingham Borough over the impact, which I will ask them to supply. He agreed that this year’s formula had not been kind to Wokingham.

The need for cheaper energy – and to keep the lights on

September 10, 2015 117 Comments

My contribution to Tuesday’s debate on the Energy and climate change levy:

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): The two questions that the Committee needs to ask when considering this Government proposal are these. Will it will help or hinder the Government in their central task of making sure we have enough power in this country for our future needs? And will it help or hinder what I hope is also the Government’s task, which is to provide value for money and sensibly priced energy, so that we can tackle fuel poverty and have a plentiful supply of reasonably priced energy to fuel the industrial recovery and the general economic recovery that the Government wish to see? My hon. Friends the Members for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams) and for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) made important contributions, but I would like to see whether there is any scope to bring them a bit closer to the Government’s position.

Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): The right hon. Gentleman has set out the two objectives that he thinks the Government should have. Is he suggesting that tackling climate change should not be the Government’s objective?

John Redwood: I have made very clear the priorities for myself and my electors. In the situation in which the country finds itself, guaranteeing keeping the lights on and having the power for industry and commerce is a fundamental objective that I take very seriously. I also take seriously the need to ease what Labour used to call “the cost-of-living crisis” to ensure that people have more money to spend for a better lifestyle, so affordable energy is crucial. Those are the priorities I set out for these policies. I think they can be achieved while ensuring that we reduce pollution, which I am very much in favour of. I wish to have sensible environmental policies, but my priorities are security of supply and powering better-paid jobs and more activity, which requires lower energy prices.

Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green): rose—

John Redwood: I willingly give way to the hon. Lady, who always wants to price people out of energy.

Caroline Lucas: I think I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He, like me, would like to see affordable energy, but given that nuclear power is one of the most unaffordable energies and that we are going to lock ourselves into extremely high prices for nuclear into times to come, will he be consistent in his position? If he does not want unaffordable energy, will he also oppose nuclear energy fees?

John Redwood: I have not seen all the figures on what the contract prices might entail, but I entirely agree that I want affordable energy. The advantage of nuclear energy is that it is reliable energy, and the problem with too much wind energy in the system is that it is very unreliable energy. It is therefore very expensive energy because a full range of back-up power is necessary for when the wind is not blowing. That means investing at twice the cost—investing in the wind energy and then in the back-up energy. With nuclear, only one investment needs to be made. The hon. Lady is quite right that it is crucial to get value for money if it is decided to lock into a nuclear contract.

Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab): The right hon. Gentleman may be aware that the interim report of the Competition and Markets Authority pointed out in June that customers on the standard variable tariffs are providing the big six energy companies with an extra £1 billion a year on account of over-charging? If he is concerned about the cost of energy, as I am, does he not agree that it is disgraceful that since that report we have heard nothing from the Government about how they are going to tackle this over-charging of some of the most vulnerable customers paying their electricity and gas bills today?

John Redwood: I have no more time than the right hon. Lady for over-charging vulnerable customers. I, too, look forward to an informed and sensible response to the report she mentioned. I do not think, however, that it is very relevant to the levy and the tax change that we are debating here today. The issue before us is whether this change to the levy will make it more difficult to keep the lights on and more difficult to deliver cheaper energy. I do not think it does, but the Government need to respond to the other crucial issues posed by my hon. Friends the Members for Selby and Ainsty and for Brigg and Goole.

Given that the margins are now extremely tight—in view of the huge reduction in traditional capacity that we have experienced, some people are pessimistic about the next two or three winters—can the Government do more, and do it cheaply and sensibly, at the same time as making the levy change? That should ensure that the great power stations we still have available can be either kept in the system and running to provide more power—preferably base load power, but it may have to be variable power, given how the thing is now run—or at least be kept available on standby. We may have to pay a price for that as part of that guarantee of supply. The three power stations we have heard about from colleagues this evening are part of the possible answer. We need to know that there is a future for traditional stations and that they can be priced into the system while we are in this period of transition, trying to work out what a modern electricity generation system will look like in five or 10 years’ time.

Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con): Will not this change in the levy, which is being made so quickly and with so little much notice—28 days—make things extremely difficult for generators such as Drax, and will not the likelihood of capacity that is safe for us all be greatly reduced over the next couple of years?

John Redwood: My hon. Friend has made a powerful case in defence of Drax. I hope that discussions are taking place between the Government and Drax about how Drax can continue to make a contribution and the Government’s intention—which I will be supporting this evening—can be preserved. I think it entirely possible to change the levy while also coming up with a solution for Drax.

Many people wondered about the advantage of switching from coal to wood, and about whether that was what quite what we wanted to do as part of a so-called decarbonisation strategy. Perhaps there is a better answer, but I return to my original proposition: I want an answer that will keep the lights on and provide the best possible value for money, and I think that there needs to be more discussion between the Energy Department and the big power stations to meet those two aims.

What I liked about the Minister’s opening remarks was his constant stress on the importance of value for money. That must be what drives Government policy. We want the productivity improvements that are now coming through. It is remarkable how, when Labour Members complain about something, that nearly always transforms it for the better. They complained about the cost-of-living crisis, and energy prices collapsed. Then they complained about the lack of productivity growth, and productivity started to take off. We are very grateful to them for those wrong calls, which seem to provide the stimulus that we need in order to create a better world; but if we are to drive productivity forward, providing more and cheaper power is crucial, because many modern processes, particularly in industry, are very energy-intensive.

The danger of some of the policies that have been followed by the European Union and by the last Labour Government is that we price ourselves out of energy-intensive industries—not in a way that spares the planet the carbon dioxide that those processes generate, but in a way that simply drives the businesses to another part of the world. No one should be happy about that. Those who believe that the fundamental priority is cutting carbon dioxide must take a global view; they cannot take a parochial, single-country view. Again, those whose main concern, like mine, is the prosperity and wellbeing of the British people cannot be happy if the decarbonisation policy has worked in one country, but has produced an equal or bigger amount of carbon dioxide somewhere else because the jobs and the industry have simply been transferred. That makes no sense whatsoever.

My hon. Friend the Minister will have my support—and, I am sure, that of many Conservative Members—if this proposal is tested shortly in the Lobbies, but we see it as only one part of a much bigger picture. We believe that if it is to work in removing the anomaly between different types of power and allowing some power from overseas to benefit, we must ensure that other elements of the policy mix are able to deal with the fundamental issues of supply, availability and value for money in the power system.

What the Government must do—and what they are beginning to do in a way that is shocking some Opposition Members—is revisit the huge cat’s cradle of subsidies, environmental tax, environmental tax breaks and rules which are extremely complicated, and which may, indeed, be having perverse consequences. They may be driving carbon dioxide-generating business out of this country while not cutting the global totals; they may be jeopardising our security of supply; they may be making it more difficult to deliver what we wish to do for, in particular, lower-income consumers who find current energy prices very challenging; and they are obviously in danger of undermining important, big, traditional investments in this country that could serve us better for longer if they were not driven out of business by environmental controls emanating from previous Governments and, particularly, from the European Union.

I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to justify the support of our party for this one element by reminding us that it must be part of a bigger picture, and that that bigger picture must be driven by a more rational policy that can deliver both the security of supply and the cheaper energy that the United Kingdom needs.

Mr Redwood’s contribution to the Finance Bill, 8 September 2015

September 9, 2015 0 Comments

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I remind the House that I advise an industrial and an investment company and the details are set out in the register.

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

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

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that in July we voted against the cut in inheritance tax in the Budget, which would bring in another £1 billion in the final year.

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

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

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

Barbara Keeley: The right hon. Gentleman should be directing his question to the Chancellor, because, as I said, it was the Chancellor who said that

“tax increases are not required to achieve further consolidation, as “this can be achieved with spending reductions”
The right hon. Gentleman ought to be asking the Government and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor his question rather than the Opposition, because the promise to the electorate—this is the important thing—was that there would be no tax increases, yet here we are soon after the Budget with a tax increase that will hit many millions of households and bring in £8 billion.

John Redwood: But I support the Government on that. I think that they are right to want to make more progress in bringing down the deficit—I am not sure whether the hon. Lady agrees. I also think that they are absolutely right to honour the very important promise they and I made to our electors not to increase income tax or VAT. Better still, we must honour our pledge to get income tax down, particularly for people on lower incomes, by raising the threshold. I also wish to see reductions in income tax at the 40% level, which affects many of my constituents and those who aspire to better jobs and pay, which we hope our economic recovery will deliver to many more people. We are honouring our pledge not to increase income tax rates, but to make the cuts we specified over the five-year period, and we are honouring our pledge on VAT.

Barbara Keeley: There seems to be a very selective honouring of pledges going on. The pledge not to increase taxes is not being met, because £8 billion is being taken. The other thing that I am very concerned about is the Government’s decision to ditch the pledge to cap social care costs. It is one thing to allow people with properties worth £1 million not to pay inheritance tax, but it is quite another when people up and down the country will be hit by the dropping of the pledge to cap care costs. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to comment on that, because I am sure that it affects his constituents just as it affects mine.

John Redwood: I think that we are now going rather wide of the amendment and the clause that we are meant to be debating. I wish to see a generous care system that is properly controlled and disciplined. If the hon. Lady has individual cases where people will be adversely affected unreasonably, I am sure that Ministers will be willing to look at them. The last thing I wish to see is unreasonable cuts affecting people who really need the money, but I also wish to see more work done—this is what the Government are doing—to promote the abilities of many people, including those she suggests are disabled, because many people have many abilities. This Government are about encouraging those abilities, helping people to do more for themselves and, where possible, to get into work so that they can lead more rewarding lives, and so that they can receive pay in addition to the benefit assistance for which they currently qualify. There is a complete policy there to promote better lives for everyone in society, and cutting income taxes is an important part of that, and promoting abilities and opportunities is another.

George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP): Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that there is a moral hazard to a degree in taxing insurance? There is a moral hazard that we recognise through the fact that 80% of activity in the insurance business is not taxed. Therefore, if we are increasing the tax burden on that 20% simply to raise revenue, it might be worth coming back and looking at the consequences.

John Redwood: That is very good advice, and that is exactly what this Committee is trying to do by highlighting the issue in a short but thorough debate.

I will now make some progress on the specific matters relating to insurance tax. It passes my first test, which is that if we have to increase a tax rate we must ensure that we get more revenue from it. It passes that test because the starting rate is sufficiently low, and the forecasts indicate that we will see a substantial increase in revenue as a result of the change.

The second question is what is its distributional effect. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) understandably made much of the cases that are the hardest, but overall I would imagine—the Minister may have some figures—that people who are better off will pay more of this tax than people who are not so well off, because a lot of it is insuring property and asset and businesses, and it will be the people with the most substantial assets and businesses who will pay rather more of that tax. It therefore meets a general test of fairness in the sense that it is progressive.

My one nervousness about that—I look forward to the Minister’s response on this—is over the issue of the young driver, which the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South raised. I think that we need to ensure that we have a very supportive package for young people generally, because they are finding it difficult to price themselves into housing, and they do not always get the rates of pay at the beginning of their careers that we would like to see them enjoy. It is very important that we keep cutting the income taxes at the lower end of income, especially for them, because they really need to keep everything they earn if their starting pay is not very good.

The biggest problem for the young driver, particularly the young male driver, is that the starting prices for insurance can be exceptionally high. Indeed, it is sometimes difficult for the very young male driver to get insured at all. We have to ask ourselves why that is. The main reason, of course, is that the young driver is perceived to be a bad risk by the insurance company. There is some evidence that the younger driver may, on average, have a worse record than the older driver, and that is why the premiums can be particularly high on younger people.

Perhaps the Government can help rather more, through and with the industry, to tackle the main problem, which is not the tax on the premium but the initial height of the premium. Some good work has been done in the industry to provide methods of reassurance that the young person will drive well and safely by means of technology in the car that monitors them, at their own request and with their agreement. That may be the price of their getting the lower premium. We need to look at how technology and support for good driving can be reinforced so that a young person is more readily insurable at a realistic price. Of course, if the young person behaved recklessly, that would become obvious and the arrangements would have to be changed, but there are ways in which this can be done.

Barbara Keeley: It is not a question of technology changes. This £50 increase, at least, in the duty paid on the very high premiums that the right hon. Gentleman is talking about will prevent young people—presumably young men, more than young women—from getting to the point where they can start to gain experience. The age at which people will be able to be insured will advance and advance so that they will be unable to get started. That is the issue. It is not a question of technology but of making insurance affordable, and this makes it worse.

John Redwood: I am trying to deal with the underlying reason why it can be very difficult for young men, in particular, to afford insurance. The big problem is not the increment on top of the current insurance tax or the bigger increment resulting from this Bill; it is the starting level of the premium. People are working on ways in which we may be able to address that.

If the young person can accept a system that will reassure the insurer that they are going to drive sedately, prudently and safely, then the reason for charging them more disappears. By accepting the constraints of the technology, they can demonstrate that they are driving safely. That reinforces their cheaper premium and they can start to earn the bonuses that the rest of us enjoy if we have driven safely for a long period and then get discounts on the insurance costs. It is getting started that is so difficult for young males, in particular, when they are all judged by the average standards of high claims that the industry experiences. I hope that the Minister and her colleagues in Departments more directly related to the insurance industry will look at this problem. It is not caused primarily by the tax system but by assessment of risk and perceptions of driving behaviour. It can be very unfair on individuals, and the more that can be done to smooth that out, the better.

I do not like tax rises. Part of the reason I am in Parliament is that I want to be a voice to try to keep taxes down and have a more prosperous society as a result. I cannot say that I welcome this part of the Finance Bill, but as someone who believes that there are important public items that we cannot cut, and faced as we are with Opposition parties that very rarely come forward with any proposals to save public money, we have to raise a reasonable amount of money. We have been borrowing too much, and this is part of a series of measures to try to get our borrowing under some kind of control. With regret, I conclude with the Government that this is one of the least bad options for trying to do that. I hope that they will take on board the need to work away at some solutions to the underlying problem of individual categories such as young drivers who may find this to be another increment on top of a difficult situation.

A fair referendum

September 9, 2015 68 Comments

On Monday the Commons resumed consideration of the Referendum Bill. Many of us had in mind three big issues to ensure a fair referendum. The first was the rules controlling the conduct of government in the referendum campaign. The second was the role of the broadcasters. The third was the question of how much money each side can spend. Labour only had sympathy for our concerns on the first of these, so where we disagreed with the government we only had the votes to make changes in that area.

The government understood our concerns about the so called purdah rules. Following a very unfair Welsh referendum Mr Blair’s government had put in the 2000 Act to regulate the activities of government during referendum campaigns. Conservatives had broadly agreed with their actions on this legislation, and the Coalition continued with it for the referendums on the AV voting system and Scotland. The rules limit what Ministers and civil servants can do during the short campaign period for a referendum close to voting day, to avoid the use of impartial civil service staff time, government money, powers and information in ways that could directly affect the votes and which had a bearing on the issues in dispute in the referendum.

The government’s Bill on the EU referendum had sought to remove these protections from the 2000 Act for this referendum. Seeing the force of opinion when we last debated it, the government moved amendments to its original Bill to restore much of the framework of the 2000 Act. They explained that the intention behind amending the 2000 Act was to allow Ministers in the four week campaign period to attend Ministerial meetings in the EU and if necessary to make statements and defend the UK’s position on issues which come up, without wishing Ministers to stray into the question of whether we should remain or leave. Ministers said they had legal advice which they could not publish suggesting problems for them if they did not amend the 2000 Act and went about their normal business in Brussels. Ministers sought a provision in the Bill that would allow them to exempt various Ministerial activities from the restrictions of the 2000 Act.

The Commons decided to back the cross party Public Administration Committee’s proposal to strengthen the government’s protections, by disallowing any changes to the rules governing Ministerial conduct for the last four months before the vote. The Commons after a good debate went further and decided not to accept the government’s proposed compromise limiting government conduct, and to opt instead for the restoration of the full protections of the 2000 Act, subject to the opportunity for the government more than 4 months before the vote to seek a further exemption from the House. Should the government come forward with wide ranging exemptions the House is likely to decline them. I will deal with the other two issues in later posts.

Mr Redwood’s speech during the debate on European Union Referendum Bill (Programme) (No. 2): Clause 2 — entitlement to vote in the referendum, 7 September 2015

September 8, 2015 2 Comments

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I rise to speak on the issues of the independence of broadcasting and campaign funding covered by two of the new clauses. It is most important that we should have a fair referendum and I think that the House has made a wise decision this evening to further that aim. I hope that the nation’s leading broadcaster, the BBC, will enter into the spirit of wanting that fair campaign and will study and understand where those who wish to stay in and those who wish to leave are coming from. It needs to learn that in the run-up to the referendum campaign proper as well as in the campaign itself. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has tabled a suitable new clause to try to ensure that that happens and I hope that the Minister will share our wishes and might have something to say on this point.

I notice that in recent months it has been absolutely statutory for practically every business person being interviewed on business subjects and subjects of great interest to consumers and taxpayers to be asked for their view of whether their business would be ruined if we left the European Union. The question is always a leading question and they are treated as somewhat guilty or suspect if they do not immediately say yes, of course, their business would be ruined if we were to leave the European Union.

Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend sometimes wonder how these people come to be asked to go on the programme?

John Redwood: It would be far too dangerous for me to speculate on that without more factual information at my disposal. My hon. Friend is being slightly mischievous. I could not possibly agree with him and call into question how people are invited to BBC interviews. However, it is interesting that the one argument that the campaign to stay in the EU seems to have—that leaving the EU would be bad for business and jobs would be lost—has become a constant refrain in all BBC interviews.

The BBC seems devastatingly disappointed when a lot of businesses take the opposite view. It was fascinating to hear the wonderful interview with Nissan last week. The whole House will welcome the great news that Nissan has a very big investment programme for the United Kingdom’s biggest car plant, which will carry it through the next five years and beyond with a new model. When the BBC tried to threaten that investment by asking, “Wouldn’t you cancel it if the British people voted to come out of the EU?”, Nissan said, “No, of course we wouldn’t.” It is about the excellence of the workforce, the excellence of the product and access to an extremely good market here. It is in no way conditional upon how people exercise their democratic rights in Britain.

It is that spirit—the spirit of Nissan—that I hope the BBC will wish to adopt when contemplating such interviews in future. I hope that it will understand that most business interviews over the next few months should not be about the politics of the EU; they should be about whether the company is doing well—creating jobs, making profits and investing them wisely. If the business is misbehaving, then by all means the interview should be about the allegations.

Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): Who does the right hon. Gentleman think is behind this sinister conspiracy at the BBC? Is it the director general or some other individual in a senior position, or are other forces directing the BBC in such a way that he believes there is a conspiracy to keep Britain in the European Union?

John Redwood: I never said that there is a conspiracy, and I have not suggested that there is one figure in the BBC who holds that view; I think that most people in the BBC hold that view, and I think that it is quite spontaneous. I think that in some cases they are not even aware that they are doing it. I note that many Members, including on the Opposition Benches, are nodding their heads wisely. They, too, have heard such interviews. It now seems almost a statutory requirement in what should be interviews on general business subjects to regard those people as having some unique insight into our future in the European Union, ascribing to them supernatural powers that apparently the millions of other voters in the country do not share, asking them to dictate the future. I think that the referendum is a democratic process and that everyone’s vote is of equal weight and value. It is a conversation for the whole country. I am not against business people joining in, because I am a democrat, and they have voices; I just think that it is a bit odd that our leading broadcaster wants to turn every business interview into a political interview.

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): I am charitable to the BBC and do not think that it sets out to be biased in its coverage. The problem—I am not entirely sure how my right hon. Friend will tackle this point—is that it sets out to talk only to people from the same metropolitan set, and they all have the same opinions. The people in the BBC need to get out more and discover that across the country there are opinions different from those of their narrow band of people. How does he think they can address that? It is not conscious bias; they just need to get out more.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend make his comments in his own inimitable way. That is not quite what I was trying to say, or how I was going to say it, but this is a free country and it is wonderful to hear him contribute to the debate.

I am just trying, in the brief few moments that you have kindly allowed me, Mr Speaker, to extend the conversation from this great Chamber to the BBC and to say to it, “We all want you to be part of this big family conversation in the run-up to the referendum, but you have a unique responsibility, because you are charged with independence, fairness and balance. We trust that you will be especially careful, because many people have very passionate views on both sides of the argument, and that always creates more tensions and difficulties for broadcasters.”

John Nicolson (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP): I am curious to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was as acutely aware of that bias among business leaders during the Scottish referendum campaign, when they were wheeled out repeatedly as part of “Project Fear” to hone their skills, which we will doubtless see much of in the coming months. I just cannot remember him being so outraged at the time. Perhaps he could confirm that.

John Redwood: If the hon. Gentleman cares to check johnredwoodsdiary.com, my blog, he will see that I wrote on that very subject during the Scottish campaign ahead of the referendum and made very similar points to the ones I am making now about the role of business, where it can help and where it cannot. He will be disappointed to learn that I believe in being consistent. It has been one of my problems in politics, trying to be consistent, and if one seeks to combine consistency with being right, it can be absolutely devastating. I must now teach myself humility and realise that no one can always be right; we just have to carry on the conversation as best we can.

Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington) (LD): Are there any circumstances in which it would be legitimate for a BBC reporter to ask a UK business that trades with Europe whether there would be an impact on that business were the UK to come out of the European Union?

John Redwood: That would be appropriate if they were doing a package on attitudes towards Europe, for example; or it would be appropriate during the referendum campaign to have business voices as well as political voices and others—but not in every interview that is meant to be about a business subject. BBC reporters do not choose to do that every time a social worker is on to talk about a social work case, or some local government worker is on. They do not immediately ask, “What would happen to your job if we left the EU?” There is something quite odd about it. Very often, the business matters that are being discussed have nothing to do with foreign trade. Nor do I understand why the right hon. Gentleman and some others wish to mislead and threaten the British people into thinking that our trade would be at risk, because clearly it would not be at risk. All of us wish to trade with Europe and be friends with Europe, but some of us wish to have a relationship with the European Union that allows their euro to evolve into the political union that they want without dragging Britain in and losing our democracy in the process.

Tom Brake: I am getting more confused, because now the right hon. Gentleman is drawing a parallel between the impact that coming out of the EU would have on a business and the impact on a social worker. Perhaps he would like to explain in what way the UK coming out of the EU would have an impact on a social worker.

John Redwood: Of course coming out of the EU will have an impact on the conduct of the public sector in Britain, as well as on the private sector. It will change who makes the laws and how the budgets are run, for example. If we did not have to send £11 billion a year to the EU to be spent elsewhere, we would have more scope to have better social work and tax cuts in the United Kingdom. I think that would be extremely good news. Why are public service workers not asked whether they would rather see some of that money spent on their preferred public service than sent to be spent elsewhere in the European Union? That line of questioning would be just as interesting as the one trotted out each time for business people: “Will your business come to an end if the British people dare to vote for democracy?”

Philip Davies: Is not the point that the BBC tries to show that every business wants to remain in the European Union, when the fact is that many businesses want to leave the EU? The BBC always seems to be able to find businesses that want to stay in, but never seems to be able to look at the website of Business for Britain, which has more than 1,000 businesses that are quite happy to be outside the European Union.

John Redwood: That is a good point. The other constitutional point I would make about businesses is that in an entrepreneurial business where the entrepreneur-owner-manager owns 51% or more of the shares, of course they speak for business, so if they say, “I want to stay in,” or, “I want us to pull out,” that is not only their view but the view of the whole business. I can understand that and it is very interesting, but quite often the people being interviewed are executives with very few shares in very large companies, who have not cleared their view through a shareholder meeting or some other constitutional process. The BBC wishes to give the impression that that is the view of all the members of the company, whereas in fact it is just the opinion of an executive. It is interesting, and the executive may be quite powerful, but he does not necessarily speak for the company, and that is never stressed in the exchanges.

Sir William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, quite often, what is interesting is which questions are not asked, as well as those that are asked and the people who are put on? For example, some of us have for a long time been making the argument, based on House of Commons Library statistics, that we run a deficit with the other 27 member states of about £62 billion, whereas the Germans run a surplus with the other 27 member states of about the same amount or more. Why does that sort of argument never get aired or heard?

John Redwood: I am being tempted into byways on the substance of the debate in the forthcoming referendum, but my hon. Friend is absolutely right. We would like to hear more questioning of our deficit and a reminder that we are the customers more than the producers; it is the other way round for the Germans. It is unusual for the customers to be in a weak position and the producers in a strong position.

We should remember that we are the customer country in the European Union and that the customer used always to be right. Perhaps we should have rather more care taken over our attitudes because we are the customer, as a heavy net contributor to the European Union, and we would like to hear more questions about what are the other possibilities. What could we do with the money if we were not paying it in? What would happen to our trade deficit were we no longer inside the Union? The answer is that we would still have a big trade deficit with the European Union because trade would continue on exactly the same basis as it has so far throughout our partial membership. Of course, we are not in Schengen and not in the euro, so we are already in a different position.

I and many others want us to have a good relationship with the European Union, but to recognise that it is now driven by the euro. Britain is not about to join the euro, and therefore does not want or need the political union. I am very pleased that our Prime Minister is trying to sort out a new relationship. That had to done. Any sensible person, wherever they are on the spectrum of European-ness or pro-EU-ness, should see that this is a crucial moment in the future of the European Union where we need to sort out our relationships, so that we do not impede the EU but it does not make too many decisions on our behalf that the British people do not welcome or want.

On funding, to make sure that we have a campaign that is fair and perceived to be fair, we need to avoid the European Union itself spending any money or putting forward any propaganda during the campaign period. We also need to make sure that the spending limits on the political parties and the two main campaign teams are fair. I have no problem if one side raises more money than the other within the limits and is able to use it—that is the advantage of being more popular and that is the system we use. However, it is also fair to have some overall limit, as the Government are proposing. We need to be careful that the cumulative limits between different political parties and actors on one side do not become disproportionate, with the other side limited in the amount it can raise so that the thing is out of balance.

I would like my hon. Friend the Minister (Mr Liddington) to say a little more about how the two sides might line up. I would not want to find that the “leave” campaign, for example, did not have lots of political parties adding to its funding, and obviously did not have the European Union adding to it, and was then limited too much as a formal campaign. It would not be perceived as fair if one side was spending three times as much as the other under legal rules, and the other side was constrained. I hope that he will consider that and realise that we need a fair system so that people think it is a good result.

Mr Redwood’s intervention during the Statement on Syria: Refugees and Counter-terrorism, 7 September 2015

September 8, 2015 0 Comments

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con): I strongly support the Prime Minister’s view that our help to Syrian refugees must be given close to the borders of Syria, and that we should not encourage people to undertake hazardous journeys using people traffickers; that is cruel. Will he confirm that on the unrelated topic of economic migrants, more will need to be done to honour the very serious promises that we made to the British people?

The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron): My right hon. Friend makes an important point. There are a number of people who are fleeing the appalling conflicts for whom we need to find a home, but clearly there are people who have been crossing the Mediterranean—particularly those coming from Libya on the central Mediterranean route—who are economic migrants in search of a better life. Part of the comprehensive approach that Europe needs is to ensure that there is a way of breaking the link between getting on a boat in Libya and getting settlement rights in Europe. Going back through history, whenever countries have had huge problems in this regard, they have needed to break that link to discourage people from making the trip if they are not refugees.

Motor manufacture and EU membership

September 8, 2015 75 Comments

Last week Nissan made a most welcome announcement. They said the new Juke car will be made in the UK, with a £100 million investment in their Sunderland factory assuring its jobs and success through into the next decade. When asked by the BBC, their Chairman confirmed that this decision was not dependent on any particular outcome to the referendum on UK’s membership of the EU. The decision is a recognition of the efficiency and quality of work in the UK and the growing market for cars here.

Tata Motors have come to a similar decision, with their announcement of a £400 million expansion, including a new engine plant in the UK. They too have been impressed by the quality, efficiency and technology the UK is capable of delivering, and like the UK domestic market for their products.

I welcome this for its own sake. I too have been impressed by what has been achieved in recent years. The UK now has world beating factories achieving great results.

I also welcome what this means for the EU referendum debate. Some years ago three leading car producers with factories in the UK made clear they wished the UK to enter the Euro, and went on to say they would not carry on investing here if the UK stayed out. I will not repeat the quotes and name the companies, as I am pleased to report they all changed their minds, and all went on to invest more. It appears that this time round the pro EU politicians will not be able to rely on quotes from overseas car producers to justify their threatening and wrong forecasts that we will watch our car industry shrink if we leave the EU, as the main players are committed to long term expansion plans regardless of the decision.

As I have long argued, there is no way we wish to end up with tariffs against German or French car imports into the UK, even though they sell more to us than we sell to them. There is no likelihood of new higher tariffs on cars made here. Germany has told us she does not want higher tariffs on the car trade with the UK. The worldwide industry will go on investing in the UK all the time management and workforce do a great job on quality, efficiency and cost. If we vote to leave the EU we will still trade with them, be friends with them, and have many agreements and contacts with them.

Economic migrants, refugees and borders

September 7, 2015 154 Comments

The EU’s border and migration administration reveals a dithering, divided policy. In recent days we have seen Hungary try to keep migrants out of the EU altogether, but have to accept thousands without legal documents. We have seen Hungary tell migrants under EU rules they must stay in Hungary and claim asylum there or leave the EU, only to see Austria and Germany welcome them without Hungary doing its stated job. We have seen Hungary refuse to allow migrants to use trains and buses to cross their country, and then to offer free buses to some migrants who decided on a dangerous walk on a motorway. We still do not know if Germany really means she is only accepting Syrian refugees, or whether she will accept anyone from anywhere that has made the difficult journey to her border, refugee or economic migrant. The BBC said there were people from many countries crossing Hungary, and many were likely to be economic migrants. Will Germany send back those who are not fleeing violence against themselves in Syria?

We have seen Germany change the rules over how to assess and receive migrants unilaterally, and say there must be a quota system to take more. Germany has not explained how you make migrants go to countries within the EU that they do not favour, or how you stop them going to countries already above quota once the migrants have gained legal documents allowing them to live and work in the EU.

This muddled policy can also be dangerous. I am sure they do not intend it to be so, but holding out the hope of an EU welcome and citizenship to any who use people smugglers to make the hazardous journey from Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere and who eventually arrive tired and troubled at an EU border is in danger of putting more at risk. It could simply fuel the people smugglers cruel bonanza. As we have seen, even when they arrive in the EU there are still travel dangers if the migrants walk with children on railway lines and motorways rather than have permission and tickets to travel safely.

I think the UK is right to say the best way to help Syrian refugees is to provide support and assistance close to the homeland they have left on a far bigger scale than the EU is thinking of doing for individual refugees coming to the EU by hazardous means. I also think the rich Arab states adjacent to Syria could offer more help and support. In the UK when our children in London and other at risk locations were threatened nightly in the Second World War bombing raids they were taken out of danger as evacuees to safer parts of the country. Shouldn’t the Middle east safer countries and areas be offering something similar to children at risk in the most troubled fighting zones, whilst the regional governments and politicians work out how to find a longer term solution to the wars?
There are so many tragic deaths of children in these conflicts, and many of them passed unnoticed as children are bombed or shelled in their beds at home in war zones or die away from western cameras on their long journeys seeking a better life.

Choice of topics

September 6, 2015 45 Comments

Some of you write in protest any day I chose to write about something other than migration. There is plenty about migration in the main media at the moment. I have run three recent pieces on this topic, including a statement from the Minister about the policy they are following. I will return to it from time to time when I have something to add or when the government has taken further action.

One of the main things I do on this site is to release stories and commentaries that are different from those running from the main spin machines in the main media. Sometimes these different issues and stories do get picked up by the main media and/or the main political parties. This happened to some of my work on justice for England, stamp duty reform and home ownership last year. Today the Sunday Express featured the story about Network Rail’s losses on financial derivatives which I highlighted here last month.

I fully understand the importance of the migration issue but do not intend to turn this into a migration only website.