I have been drawing attention for sometime to the loss of 700,000 self employed since the lockdowns. The latest figures show that the loss has now risen to 790,000. Some of this was the direct result of the lockdowns themselves. Unable to earn a living owing to bans on activity, some decided to end their self employment and retire, or look for jobs when the lockdowns ended. Some of it is the result of the toughened tax regime which makes it difficult for self employed people to gain contracts from companies worried about tax status questions.  Clearly the more recent falls are not the result of the lockdowns but of something else.

Self employment offers flexibility, more capacity and competitive pressures that help the customers. It can also be a good way of life for people who can earn directly form their own efforts and increase their earnings from doing more and offering great customer services. I am renewing my proposal to the government that they should change the tax rules for the self employed to encourage more to take it up, to the benefit of the economy.

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):

Did the Chinese representatives give any indication of when they might stop their big increases in carbon dioxide and start to reduce them? Does the Prime Minister agree with me that it makes no sense for the UK to rely on Chinese imports of electric vehicles, solar panels and other green products when they are so CO2-intensive in their production, and deny us the jobs and added value?

The Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak:

My right hon. Friend makes a good point. He will see in the G20 declaration a commitment by all members recognising the need to peak emissions in the next couple of years. To his broader point, that is why the Government have consulted on measures to address carbon leakage. It is absolutely right that there is a level playing field, and that if we take action here it should not come at the cost of British workers if it ultimately makes no difference to global emissions. That is why we have consulted on proposals on carbon leakage, and I very much welcome his thoughts on that.

The licence fee has had its day. The government should decriminalise it, leaving it as a bill like any other. More people are going to give up the tv set and live programmes.

The government should give every licence fee payer a share in the BBC on a stated date. Then the share holder licence payers can decide who should run their People’s BBC and what its strategy should b e. The government could negotiate a contract for the BBC to provide whatever public service broadcasting it thought it needed, which would include the World Service, and pay for this from general taxes. It could alternatively put out to tender the public service work allowing others to bid. We need to see exactly what they think public service broadcasting is and what it costs.

Freed of the licence fee entrapment the BBC would be free to raise new share capital, to take out longer term borrowings, and to exploit its excellent back book of material more effectively. It should aim to become a major world media corporation capable of taking on  the mega stars of the current US dominated media world.

So that it remained British the shares could contain a restriction on sales, only allowing sale to other UK citizens.

I see discussion from Treasury sources of a Spring budget with tax cuts, based on updating benefit payments by a smaller amount than the current system would provide next April.  This is a bad idea.

It is a bad idea because we need the tax cuts now, not delayed to next Spring. The economy is slowing badly thanks to clumsy Bank of England actions driving rates so high and selling bonds at low prices. We need tax cuts now to stop a drift into recession and provide the growth the Prime Minister has promised.

It is a bad idea because there are many easier and more sensible ways of cutting public spending.  Why doesn’t the Treasury tell the Bank to stop selling bonds at big losses – £24 bn so far this financial year – all losses which the Treasury and taxpayer has to pay for? Why doesn’t the Chief Secretary complete his review of public sector productivity which has  nosedived in the last three years and put in measures to boost it? Why doesn’t the government impose a ban on all new external recruitment into the public services save for trained medics, teachers and uniformed personnel?

The government needs to review the huge costs of the net zero programme, stated to be a total public and private  £1.3 tn up to 2050 by the Climate change Committee. It needs to be brought down for the government by re phasing and by relying more on private sector investment and technical advances and less on government subsidy.

The tax cuts we need include ending the IR 35 changes to   the self employed, increasing the VAT threshold for small businesses to £250,000, reducing taxes on energy to get inflation down quicker, cutting corporation tax and reducing the carbon taxes which are pricing the UK out of industrial activity. Getting on with producing gas and oil from fields already discovered in the North Sea would help the balance of payments and boost tax revenues.

The way to tackle the welfare bills is to speed up the programmes the government is designing to help more UK people into work. We could then also issue fewer work permits to migrants, cutting the costs of housing and other facilities for low paid new arrivals.

Please find below the link to an interview that I took part in discussing the final years of John Major’s Government

You can find it here on BBC Sounds:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001q0kh

I was argued against the UK joining the Exchange rate Mechanism, predicting the troubles it could cause our economy. I took up the battle against the loss of the pound following the Maastricht Treaty discussions. I resigned from the government to get policy change, especially wanting a guarantee that a Conservative government would use the UK’s opt out from joining the Euro.I helped  secure the promise of a referendum before destroying the pound from both main parties. I knew the British people would never vote to surrender their currency.

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):
I strongly support the initiative to help more people who are long-term sick and disabled into work where they wish to do that. My query is: why on earth is it going to take so long? We need to be doing this now, to ease our workplace shortages and to give those people earlier support and hope. Will my right hon. Friend please work with his officials to speed it all up?

Mel Stride, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:
I share my right hon. Friend’s keenness to see these proposals—whatever may or may not emerge—come forward as soon as possible. They will require a lot of work on IT systems and changes to systems. The providers will have to incorporate the changes that may or not come forward as a result of this consultation. Let me reassure him that, given the benefits there will be to many people who will otherwise not benefit from work, I am as anxious as he is to make sure that we move forward at speed.

John Redwood (Wokingham, Conservative):
If this electrical revolution is to take off, many more people will need to buy electric cars and heat pumps. Does the hon. Gentleman have any advice for the Government on how those items can be made more popular and more affordable?

Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Labour):
The Government and I have been in considerable discussion about precisely that point. We need to make sure we change the model of ownership of those devices. We perhaps need to have a longer debate about that on another occasion.

John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con):
On that very point—security—what provision is being made for days when there is no wind, given that we will see the closure of most of our nuclear power stations this decade and will have little else to rely on, other than fossil fuel? How are we going to get through?

Andrew Bowie, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Nuclear and Networks:
My right hon. Friend knows that I am a great champion of supporting our oil and gas industry, which continues to supply a large amount of our energy baseload and will do for a significant amount of time to come. As he also knows, we are investing a lot of time and money into ensuring that we deliver the next generation of nuclear power plants, including small modular reactors, so that we have the energy baseload that this country needs so that, as he rightly suggests, when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine, people can still be assured that the lights will come on. The Conservative principles that I have spoken about are at the very heart of the Bill, which I am pleased to bring before the House today.

It is true that some time has passed since the Bill was introduced in July last year. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), was but a boy when this Bill was introduced last year. A huge amount of constructive dialogue and dedicated Toggle showing location ofColumn 275work has taken place during that time. I thank all the Secretaries of State at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Ministers and the Prime Ministers who have been involved since the Bill was introduced.

Since the Bill came to this House from the other place, I have met and engaged with colleagues from all sides of House. We debated the Bill in a lively Second Reading and spent 72 long hours in Committee, so I start by thanking everyone across the House, especially the shadow ministerial team, the former Scottish National party energy spokesman, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Alan Brown), and all on the Government side, for their constructive engagement in ensuring that we got the Bill to these final stages in a state that, I hope, will be broadly welcomed by most, if not all, Members.