European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Helen Goodman

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Monday 13th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Under your instructions, Mr Speaker, I am going to be brief. I want to deal specifically with the first amendment—I thought the second amendment was well dealt with by my right hon. Friends the Members for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper).

We have heard a lot in this debate, and we heard a lot in the other place, about the emotional end of what it is to give EU citizens some kind of reassurance, and I myself am publicly on the record as saying I would like to have done that by this point. However, I remind people that we also have UK citizens. The ex-leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), rightly went on about his own family, but I have a sister who has lived and worked in Italy pretty much all her life, and she has retired there. It behoves this place not to dismiss the concerns and worries of such UK citizens quite as lightly as they were dismissed in the other place and have been dismissed here today. I actually heard it said from the Opposition Benches that the reason we should not be so concerned about those UK citizens is that many of them are older and, therefore, pensioners, so they are less important. That is wrong, and I encourage the Government to stick to their plans to deal with the two issues together.

However, the thing about the amendment is that it is not actually what all this emotional argument is about. For those who want to guarantee these rights, this is not the amendment for doing so—it actually does the exact opposite, and that is for two reasons. First, it does not reassure EU nationals over here. I have had conversations with various EU nationals, and they do not feel in the slightest bit reassured by the idea that we are going to call the Government back three months after we have triggered article 50 to ask them what they plan to do. That is no reassurance, and it does not give EU nationals their rights, so we are not voting to reassure them at all.

The second element is that the amendment actually damages the Government’s position in the negotiations. Let us imagine there has been no agreement about what to do with UK citizens. On the three-month mark, the European Commission knows full well that the Government will be dragged back to the House to explain publicly what their plans are, regardless of the negotiations. I can think of nothing worse than to bind their hands in the worst way possible and make sure that UK nationals do not get reciprocal arrangements.

My point tonight is that, whatever the realities of what people want, neither amendment satisfies the requirement to protect EU nationals or to give this Parliament a meaningful vote without damaging the prospects for the Government’s negotiations. I urge the House not to vote for the amendments, and I remind those on the Opposition Benches who talk endlessly about parliamentary sovereignty that, for the 25 years I have sat in this place, all the arguments about the EU have been dismissed on the basis that we were not allowed to amend a single European treaty.

[Helen Goodman]

I wish to speak particularly to amendment 2, which is very similar to new clauses 99 and 110, which we debated about a month ago.

Conservative Members have complained about Lord Pannick’s drafting. When Ministers make that complaint, I feel it is slightly disingenuous, because they had the opportunity to amend the amendment. If they really felt the other place should not be involved, they could have changed the drafting to say not “both Houses of Parliament” but only “the House of Commons”, or they could have taken out subsection (4), which provides for what we do if there is no agreement with the EU. They have not done that, so they are making the bar higher for their colleagues behind them. In any case, either it is a problem that the House of Lords has a veto, because it is an unelected Chamber, or it is not a problem. It seems the Prime Minister made a promise that the vote would come to both Houses, so she does not seem to think it is a problem, and I do not know why it is being put up as a problem now.

The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) took us on a long perambulation about what might or might not happen. That was completely unnecessary: if we had the amendment on the face of the Bill, we would, in effect, make it part of the constitutional arrangement, which, under article 50, has to be respected by the EU counter-parties in the negotiation.

European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Helen Goodman

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 7th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The range of prediction from the Office for Budget Responsibility had nearly a £90 billion margin for error over the previous seven years; that £90 billion went from £50 billion on the plus side to £40 billion on the minus side. The problem we face is the sense that these forecasts give us any strong, real indication of what may happen in the economy. I raise this issue because the new clause and other amendments relevant to it make triggering article 50 contingent; it cannot be done officially until these forecasts are laid. This is not about consulting on them or their being made as a matter of the Government providing information. In other words, the article 50 letter cannot go until these are laid. All they do is inform the debate depending on what the forecasts are. From talking to economists, I am of the general opinion that we have had seven years of growth, and normally within the cycle we would expect to have a flattening at some point after this long period of growth. That would be the normal prospect, but economists will tell us that we are defying the normal prospects. Whether or not we have a natural process of slightly lower growth directly as a result of this longer period of growth, and what happens to the world economy and what is happening in the EU, is almost impossible to forecast with any great accuracy.

My point is that new clause 5 states:

“The Prime Minister may not give notice under section 1 until either HM Treasury has published any impact assessment…HM Treasury has laid a statement before both Houses of Parliament”.

With respect, I say to the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich that this is not just a helpful attempt to get information to the House; it is exactly what he said it was not. It is clearly a back-door attempt to make it almost impossible for the Government to get on and trigger article 50. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) said, the referendum verdict was to trigger article 50. The people were not asked, “Shall we trigger article 50 only after we have laid various reports of notables who believe the economy is good, bad or indifferent?” They were asked, “Do you want to leave or do you want to stay?” They chose to leave and we have to get on with it. The idea that the Government are going to go into a negotiation without any idea about what they favour and what they think will, by and large, on the margins, be better for us is ridiculous.

The House must recognise that it is going to be swamped with information of this sort; every forecasting agency is going to be in the game of telling us where we are, and none will be the wiser. Everybody in the House will take the worst or best one, depending on what they want. If the OBR has a margin for error of £90 billion, people can take whatever position they want. But it does not change anything, because we are leaving. The nature of the agreement that we get with the EU, if we get one, is not going to be based on a bunch of forecasts. It will be based on what those negotiating for the EU think is in their general best interest and what we from the UK manage to persuade them is in our mutual best interest. That is what a negotiation is about.

Anybody who has been engaged in negotiation in business will know that you start with your base, bottom line, worst case for you and try to improve upon that, and the other side does the same. This is not going to be about one side saying, “I tell you what my forecast comes to. It tells me we are going to be better off. What does your forecast tell?” and the other side saying, “Ours says we are going to be better off and you will be better off, so which forecast are we going to take?” The battle of forecasts is a ludicrous and pointless exercise.

[Helen Goodman]

Of course this is not, as the right hon. Gentleman characterises it, going to be a battle of forecasts. But the forecasts are based on the same thing as the assessments people make when they are judging what will or will not be in their interests. They have a mental model, and sometimes those models can be put into mathematical form, and sometimes that is useful. Surely that is precisely what the City of London is doing when it says to the French, Germans and Italians, “You need us more than we need you.”

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes, but the point is that we will be none the wiser. Members might think that a set of forecasts would somehow really inform their view, but after 25 years in the House, I would be astonished if they were right. Debates in this House are rarely really informed; they are mostly based on the judgment of individuals.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Helen Goodman

Thursday 9th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way. He always tells the House that his politics is based on his faith. Will he explain why cutting tax credits for large families is a fair thing to do when that will be concentrated—I know he does not want to look at statistics—on families where children are living in poverty: Roman Catholic families and Catholics from other minorities? Does he understand that every child matters?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I do understand that, and I am coming on to speak about tax credits. For some time I have believed that the way tax credits operated distorted the system, so that there were far too many families not in work, living in bigger and bigger houses and getting larger while being subsidised by the state, while many others—the vast majority of families in Britain—made decisions about how many children they could have and the houses they could live in. Getting that balance back is about getting fairness back into the system. It is not fair to have somebody living in a house that they cannot afford to pay for if they go back to work, as it means that they do not enter the work zone and their children grow up with no sense of work as a way out of poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I do. As my hon. Friend makes clear, if people can afford to work only 16 hours, businesses will not invest in them and their training because it will not be worth their while. That means their chances of progressing are nil. Many rotated and crashed out of work directly, because they had no sense that they could go on any further. She is absolutely right.

We believe that two-fifths of those who received tax credits ended up paying for the tax credits they received. It was a bizarre system.

This Government are different. We are building on the firm foundations of a welfare system by balancing the books and fixing the economy, while continuing to provide a strong safety net to support the most vulnerable. Our record in the previous Parliament spoke for itself, so I am going to say it again. Despite all the doomsday predictions from the Opposition—

[Helen Goodman]

Will the Secretary of State give way?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No. I gave way to the hon. Lady. She did not succeed then; she is not going to get another chance. I am terribly sorry.

[Helen Goodman]

rose—

[Mr Duncan Smith]

No, no. Honestly, I am not that kind.

Despite the doomsday predictions that the hon. Lady and many of her colleagues made, this is the actual result: 2 million more people in work; 2 million more apprentices; the proportion of workless households at an all-time low; and, perhaps most importantly, the proportion of workless households in the social rented sector at a record all-time low. That is a real record of success on which we will build. That is what we are going to do with the Budget.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I must say that that would have to be pretty quick work. If they have done that much work in a matter of hours, I want to employ them in my Department. No, I do not agree with that, and here is why. I fully support food banks. What people do to help with food banks is a very good idea. However, the figures on usage put out by food banks have all been proven to be incorrect. In Germany, 1.5 million people a week use food banks and its benefit system is meant to be more generous than ours. In Canada, more than 800,000 a month use food banks. This country has a very low number compared with other countries. Those figures speak for themselves.

As we build on this, we must meet our commitments to protect the elderly and the most vulnerable, protecting those benefits that provide for additional costs arising from disability or caring, and protecting pensioner benefits. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I make no apology for that, with good reason. When we took office, pensioners were some of the most vulnerable people suffering from a very, very low income. We have begun to put that right, and we intend to be proud of it.

It is right that we provide extra support for those who face the biggest challenges in changing their income levels. Spending on the main disability benefits—disability living allowance, personal independence payment and attendance allowance—will be higher in every single year to 2020 compared with 2010. Our commitment to protecting the most vulnerable is why we have protections in place on policies such as the benefit cap, so that people are exempt if someone in a household is claiming DLA, PIP or working tax credits. Wherever possible, we are introducing measures on a flow basis to give people the time and knowledge to prepare for the changes.

We are also ensuring that people on benefits face the same choices as those in work and not on benefits. Our measures will mean people making decisions and choices about their lives, which is why we are introducing the two-children element on a flow basis, and why we are lowering the benefits cap to £23,000 in London and £20,000 elsewhere, emphasising that it is not fair for someone on benefits to receive more than many people in work. I think that that principle is well accepted and popular around the country. In London, about four in 10 households earn less than £23,000, and outside London the same proportion earn less than £20,000.

[Helen Goodman]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous today.

Will the Secretary of State not admit that although he is protecting disability benefits, he is not protecting disabled people, because disabled people also get tax credits and housing benefit?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I just do not agree with that, I am afraid. We have set out to protect disability living allowance and PIPs so that those in the greatest need are protected and their benefits continue to rise. As I said, we will help those in work and capable of work through the living wage and childcare support. We will get people back to work and doing more hours. I do not agree, therefore, with what the hon. Lady says; we have gone out of our way to protect those in the greatest need.

Child Poverty

Debate between Iain Duncan Smith and Helen Goodman

Thursday 25th June 2015 Commons Chamber

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a critical point. If we set up a target process that deals with only one aspect of a symptom, we will not get to the root causes. We have set out to get to those families who are the furthest away from employment, and move them into independence through employment. The figures I have given on the number of people in social housing now back in work and those on the lowest incomes now back in work are dramatic. They are better than any other records previously established.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has been in his post for five years. In that time, the number of households living in absolute poverty has gone up by 2 million and the number of children doing so has gone up by half a million. Is not ditching the relative poverty measure and moving to focus on absolute poverty a complete own goal?