John Redwood's Diary
Incisive and topical campaigns and commentary on today's issues and tomorrow's problems. Promoted by John Redwood 152 Grosvenor Road SW1V 3JL

Anyone submitting a comment to this site is giving their permission for it to be published here along with the name and identifiers they have submitted.

The moderator reserves the sole right to decide whether to publish or not.

Parliamentary sovereignty

Beneath the rows and disappointments over the small boats and the Northern Ireland Protocol lies one very simple point. Can UK voters tell their Parliament they want the boats stopped and NI/GB trade restored and expect to  get their Parliament to do this? There are still so many voices and all the Opposition parties saying the Uk Parliament is not sovereign. They use international Treaties, views of foreign countries, and judges to prevent government legislating the will of a majority of the people.

It was this frustration that led many to vote to end EU law and the role of the European Court of justice in our lives, so our Parliament could then act for the people. We  are now told the Geneva Convention on refugees and the Human Rights Court prevent us stopping the boats. Meanwhile the EU seeks to interpret the Protocol in a way which imposes EU law and its Court on part of the UK again.

Parliament answers to the people. There are varying interpretations of treaty law. Countries  change their minds about Treaties and some Treaties age badly. If the UK government wants to stop the boats it has to ask the UK Parliament to make clear its treatment of illegal migrants by sea is as set out in UK law regardless of Treaties. To take control of GB/NI trade and rules we need to see through the NI Protocol Bill, approved by large Commons majorities.

Sovereignty matters. We need to exercise it to solve these problems.

My Conservative Home article on the budget

A picture of Nigel Lawson hangs in the study at 11 Downing Street. I was told Rishi Sunak asked for it to be placed there. I understand Jeremy Hunt  approves. As both men admire Nigel, why are they so wedded to high and higher tax rates?
Nigel Lawson brought intellectual self confidence and energy to the task of being Chancellor. He fearlessly slashed income tax and corporation tax rates. Extra revenue poured in as growth improved. He was soon able to claim after large cuts that the rich were paying more tax, were paying more tax in real terms and were paying more income tax as a proportion of the total. What’s not to like? Why not do the same again?
The Chancellor should see that charging people on £100,000 a year 60% on anything above £100,000, more than people on much higher incomes are charged above £125,000, makes no sense. It also annoys the doctors we want to keep here and working in the NHS. Get rid of that anomaly.
The Chancellor agrees we need more self employed. The loss of 700,000 since covid from self employment is bad news. It is partly caused by the 2021 tax changes. Reverse them. We need more plumbers, electricians, white van men and women to help look after our homes and businesses. It needs to be worthwhile to them. They do not want an IR 35 and VAT nightmare.
The Chancellor himself advocated a much lower corporation tax rate when he put together his leadership bid. It was right then and right now. Ireland shows us how well it works. They raise four times as much tax from business per head than we do because they have such an attractive low rate. Why insist on higher rates to collect less tax?
The problems seem to stem from OBR and Treasury forecasts and accounting. They do not allow enough for extra revenue from changed behaviour when tax rates are cut. They ignore the evidence from modern Ireland or from the UK under Lawson. To them a corporation tax rise delivers more revenue, yet it was Osborne’s corporation tax cuts that delivered higher receipts. The Chancellor should cut the rates and explain why he thinks the OBR revenue forecasts are too low. He can always hike the tax rate again if there  was an  exception to the rule that lower rates give us more revenue.
The government wants more investment. The super deduction from corporation tax helped a bit but did not produce an Irish style business bonanza. They could keep the deduction for longer, but will also need lower rates. Businesses model the cashflows over the life of an investment, not just the first couple of years when they are putting money  in and benefitting from a tax offset then. A country with a low headline rate gets more investment enquiries. The UK is getting a bad reputation with a 31%   hike in the Corporation tax rate planned, and with an avalanche of unpredictable windfall taxes. Getting oil and gas out of the North Sea instead of importing will lead to a 50% Corporation tax levy and a 35% windfall levy, making  it one of the worst places to risk large sums for more energy. No wonder some good prospects are sitting under the sea with their owners unwilling to get into production anytime soon. We will collect less revenue because less oil and gas will be produced here by having such high tax rates. We will also lose out on all the high paid jobs and profits oil and gas activity bring.
As this is to be a budget for growth the Chancellor should raise the threshold for business to register for  VAT from the current £85,000 turnover. There are many businesses that turn work down to stay below the threshold and probably some that illegally  do extra for cash to evade registration. A higher threshold would mean more work and profit to tax and more supply capacity in a world of shortages and high prices. Put it up to £250,000 and let small businesses expand.
It is no good saying this time they will stick up taxes and hope somehow the deficit comes down, with a view to tax cuts next year. Next year is too late for them to have a beneficial effect on the economy before the election, and too late to stave off the downturn this year. High taxes stop growth which makes deficit reduction more difficult. We need a growth budget now, with some Thatcher/Lawson verve. More revenue comes to those who cut tax rates. Bigger deficits come to those who frighten off business and slow an economy  too much.
The Chancellor should beware that President Biden is splashing the cash big time on a series of incentives through tax breaks and subsidies to draw much investment into the USA. We need energy, semiconductor, transport, broadband and much other investment here in  the UK. The big players are telling us they will get better terms and conditions in the USA. The UK should  improve its pitch by easing the tax squeeze. Why not suspend VAT on home energy all the time prices are high, saving money on the subsidy bills? Why not set out the prices and conditions that will end the so called windfall taxes? If the government says they go on until  2028 whatever the gas or electricity price they are not windfall taxes, but general energy taxes that price domestic supply out of the market.
The Thatcher governments were great tax reformers. As the Chancellor gazes up at Nigel Lawson in search of inspiration he should remember this record. They took standard Income  tax down from 33% to 25%, and the top rate of income tax down from 83% to 40%. They cut the corporation tax rate by a third and Inheritance tax down from a top rate of 75% to 40%. Nigel  Lawson abolished the Investment Income surcharge, capital duty, National Insurance surcharge, development land tax and the tax on lifetime gifts.
Because of this the economy grew faster and more revenue came in. If our modern leaders truly revere Nigel Lawson they should start cutting tax rates.

The government needs to ask for substantial improvements to the Northern Ireland deal

Now more of the detail is coming out about the Northern Ireland talks, it shows us  more matters need to be clarified in writing  and sorted out in the Joint Committee before accepting any changes to the legal position.

The EU spokesman has told MEPs  according to briefings that the ECJ will have an important role and substantial amounts of EU law will apply to Northern Ireland. He also pointed out the Stormont brake would rarely be able to work. It seems  the green lane would still be subject to EU checks and to possible EU interruption to the flow of goods.  That is why I have asked the government to show us a list of the EU laws that will apply to Northern Ireland from day one of any  new agreements. I have asked how many VAT and Excise rules will still constrain our tax policies, and want to know more about what information and form filling  people will  need to supply to allow green lane trade.  It appears that EU plant and animal husbandry rules will apply. We also need to know in what circumstances the EU could suspend or  modify green lane trade.

It is most important to get this right. The rest of the UK does not want to find it needs to align with the EU over tax and regulations, any more than Unionists in Northern Ireland wish to find their laws and taxes in part come from the EU where they have no vote or voice.  The UK fully accepts the need to avoid a border between NI and the Republic, but also needs to avoid a border between  GB and NI.  Any new arrangement at the very least needs a unilateral exit route for the UK should the terms prove onerous. It  remains to be seen if the Unionist parties find it acceptable so that they can rejoin the Stormont Assembly, one of the original aims of the talks.

 

 

The need to change the law to stop small boats

The Prime Minister promised us he will stop the small boats that risk the lives of illegal migrants to get them into the UK. He made this one of his five aims. Last November he promised early action to deliver.

A previous Home Secretary introduced legislation to resolve this problem in UK law. Best Home Office and legal advice did not succeed in drafting a  lawyer proof law, so the Home Secretary’s aims were thwarted by legal challenges. Even criminals stayed in the UK with lawyers and the courts preventing their departures.

This week the PM and new Home Secretary I read may publish their draft bill. I have been urging them to get on with this since November. It will not work unless  it expressly overrides the Human Rights laws for these specific cases of people who have come here illegally. They should not be able to claim asylum from the UK after illegal entry . The Bill could contain a clause making this point and saying this applies, all other laws and Treaties notwithstanding.

We need to get on with this. Filling up hotels with illegals, keeping them there for many months and failing to send back those with no good asylum claim is unacceptable.

Lockdown arguments

The Telegraph is writing the history of the pandemic lockdowns before the official enquiry gets underway. Today I provide an opportunity to comment on the stories so far.

I joined the group of MPs who wanted a solution more like Sweden, with fewer restrictions. I voted with them against the more extreme controls. I pressed for better protection of care homes, drawing attention to the discharged patients  from hospitals as possible carriers of infection. I pressed for isolation hospitals for covid, and for use of the Nightingales. I wanted the full  use of the contracted private sector hospitals for non covid work.

I and the group of MPs challenged the data, drawing attention to the important difference between dying with contact with covid and dying of covid. We pressed successfully for Parliament to meet, in hybrid form at first and then got the proper restoration. The Opposition supported all the lockdowns and urged more and longer. They did not press for early restoration of Parliament which some of us wanted to question and scrutinise government and experts more.

I have no comments on what Mr Hancock has saying and doing. I need to concentrate on todays issues.

More investment

The Chancellor needs to look to the investment figures. They are likely to decline this year. A hard pounding from windfall taxes and price controls to be followed by a 31% rise in business tax should push investment down and put big companies off investing here.

Yet  what we need is a surge in new investment to raise more capacity.

We need more domestic oil and gas. There is plenty to get out, saving imports and cutting CO 2 but high and erratic taxes and regulatory enthusiasm for imports over domestic is costing us dear.

We need more transport capacity. Crowded roads and poor junctions need alleviating with more bypasses and freer flowing main routes. Rail investment is dominated by an ill  judged HS2 which is cost and no benefit this decade. We need more local and de bottlenecking  improvements along with digital signals to raise capacity.

We need more steel capacity as we keep closing plants thanks to overtaxation

We need to grow more of our own sustainable timber

We need to put in more market garden all weather growing capacity. instead we offer wilding grants to stop farming.

We need more electricity generating capacity from reliable sources. Where are the contracts for Small Nuclear reactors? Where the new combined cycle gas stations to keep the lights on when there is no wind?

We need more reservoirs  to meet the demands of rising population

We need more grid capacity to convey wind power from Scotland to users

We need more ship and aircraft building capacity to meet defence and civilian needs

We need to rebuild our fishing fleet

Much of this can and should be done with private capital. To do it we need lower and stable tax rates. With it we will receive more revenue.

A few more complex corporation tax offsets will not fix this. It needs commitment to low and stable tax rates to grow the taxable capacity. On current policies businesses taxes will shrink.

 

The Protocol needs an exit route for the UK and should leave us in charge of our laws and taxes.

I have tabled questions to the government about their proposed changes to the Protocol.

I want to know how many EU  laws will still apply to Northern Ireland. It appears the EU decides this and the UK can do nothing about it. The so called Stormont  brake does not apply to these laws, which we cannot amend or remove. I and my colleagues have given the government solutions to border issues which do not need NI to be under EU law.

I want to know from the  Treasury if various VAT rules remain place from the EU as the EU says or if we take back control of VAT as the UK says. If there are EU powers what are they?

I want to know if the EU also retains some controls or influence over our Excise taxes as the EU says.

I want to know if any exit  route from the Protocol is available to the UK if iit does not work out.

It would be a bad idea to lock the UK into EU laws and controls with no unilateral way out.

I am also concerned that the Stormont brake would not work. The UK legal establishment has shown itself very supportive of EU rights and powers and might well be reluctant to accept there was sufficient reason  to veto an EU law. The use of a Treaty format limits Parliament’s ability to accept or refuse new laws in the way it can for domestic legislation.

Brexit is all about making our own decisions about laws and taxes. Clearly parts of the UK establishment still wants to make that as difficult as possible.

 

The subsidy/tax merry go round

The western economies that have prospered from vibrant free enterprise sectors with competition driving change, quality and value are being subjugated by large scale interventions from government. The US, the UK and the EU are moving towards more managed models, with the state introducing price controls, windfall taxes, subsidies and regulations to have more say over what is bought and sold, where and how things are made and over what people are allowed to buy. State spending and taxes rise as the state takes money from people and companies to give back to people and companies. The energy sector has been particularly prone to this during the energy crisis, with widescale adoption of income support, price controls and company subsidies alongside windfall taxes, redirection of energy purchases and a major drive to change the way energy is generated or provided.

Energy is not alone, however. The price of money was taken way down by state and Central Bank action, only to be priced up again when the predictable inflation broke out. Housing is more and more regulated with more controls over landlords and higher taxes, leading to a contraction in supply and more upwards pressure on rents.  The state is deciding to ban products like diesel and petrol cars and certain types of heating. Governments are using sanctions, origin rules and other methods to change the patterns of trade.

Each of these individual actions is introduced to tackle a problem or to pursue a general policy goal,  but taken together they can put people off going into business and can deter companies from making the large investments they need to make to provide sufficient capacity. UK gas and oil stays under the sea as policy prefers to import. The electrical revolution requires a massive expansion of grid capacity but so far this has not been forthcoming. This leads to windfarms with no ability to sell their power and companies looking for the power they need to expand their activities.

The subsidy/windfall tax balloon raises state spending and may also raise state borrowing. Governments are underwriting more risks that should reside in the private sector. Businesses ask governments now for grants and loan guarantees before committing to battery plants, EV plants and new energy provision. Governments need to rein in some of their excesses in these areas. They are likely to cut supply and make it more difficult to find the homes , the power and the transport they need.

The EU view of the Protocol Agreement

The EU on Monday released a statement on the political Agreement with the UK over Northern Ireland.

It made clear “The EU plant and animal health rules remain applicable” in NI

It states there will be “ a set of new and existing safeguards including SPS inspection facilities and labelling “ for food trade

Pets will need a chip passport and a statement they are not going to the EU to enter NI from  GB

Goods going to NI will need new labelling

EU VAT   rules still apply in NI with “ new flexibilities”

”The European Court of Justice remains the sole and ultimate arbiter of EU law”

EU laws will still apply  in single market areas to Northern Ireland.

 

I am asking how the EU will determine which EU laws to apply, if and how our freedom to set taxes will be limited, and why the UK government wants to embed the Protocol permanently into law.

Will there be any way to modify or exit the Agreement if it does not work out as hoped?

 

Raising the VAT threshold

The VAT threshold determining when a business must register to charge VAT, is stuck at £85,000. This was the level Ministers were told the EU required. With rapid inflation this is now a small amount. If a business makes a profit of 10% it has to register when it reaches £8500 of profit. Many small businesses  now seek to keep their turnover below the ceiling, putting off taking on extra business. They do not want the extra costs of setting up a VAT system, reporting to HMRC, and dealing with VAT inspections when they want to be growing their business and serving customers. Some businesses look for ways to exceed the turnover threshold by accepting cash and  not declaring any of that transaction for tax, so there is a loss to the tax authorities.

At a time when we need growth and when we need extra capacity of many kinds to supply more and help curb inflation, it would be a good idea to raise the threshold. Putting it up to £250,000 would be a big win, allowing many more businesses to do a bit more without the tax complication, and reducing tax evasion. Overall there would be more revenue growth as the extra business generated produced more taxable employment, more purchases of VATable items used by the businesses and their customers, and more profits tax on the successful businesses.