European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between John Redwood and Stephen Timms

Tuesday 31st January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think we should pay attention to those who know what they are talking about. The reality is that our currency has fallen significantly in value following the referendum, and that means that we are poorer than we were before. But the real damage will be done when jobs start to be forced out of Britain, as they will be over the next few years.

I know that some people argue that the loss of jobs in Britain will be a price worth paying in the short term for a better long-term future. I do not agree with that view. The fact is that we will always be dependent on close partnerships with other countries. I cannot share the view that we would be better off replacing annoying interference from Brussels with annoying interference from Washington, but that appears to be what some people believe we should head towards.

[John Redwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Timms]

I am afraid that I cannot give way again.

In any case, we must not dismiss short-term job losses during the next few years as unimportant. The Prime Minister rightly aims for barrier-free access to the single market. The problem is that without signing up to at least some version of free movement she stands no chance whatever of getting barrier-free access to the single market.

In this House, we need to be frank with people about our prospects during the next few years. For example, many of my constituencies and those of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) work in the financial sector in the City of London, and one study suggests that 70,000 jobs will be lost in that one sector alone. There will be such a scale of damage in other parts of the economy as well. In my view, that is much too high a price to pay.

I agree with those who say that the various forms of so-called soft Brexit would not solve the problem. We would then end up having to apply all the rules that are devised in the EU without having any influence at all over what the rules are. That is not a viable position for the UK in the future.

The one glimmer of a Brexit without the economic damage I am concerned about would be if we signed up not to the current version of the free movement of people, but to a form of free movement of labour in which EU citizens could come to the UK if they had a firm job offer in the UK. As I understand it, that is how things worked in the Common Market in the past. If we agreed to something along those lines, I believe that it would buy us a good proportion of the barrier-free access to the single market that the Prime Minister says she wants. However, she seems to have set her face against such a concession on the immigration policy that is needed, and we will therefore pay the price.

I must say that it is very strange that our future economic wellbeing is being relegated to the importance of focusing on reducing net migration to the tens of thousands. The Prime Minister was Home Secretary for six years. In that time, non-EU net migration, which was completely under our control, was nowhere near the tens of thousands—last year, it was 150,000—and of course all EU net migration comes on top of that. The only way the target of bringing down net migration to the tens of thousands could be delivered would be at an extraordinary economic cost to the UK. I do not believe that any Government would be willing to sign up to that.

How have we got ourselves into such a mess? I think the problem was hard-wired in once David Cameron removed his MEPs from the main centre-right bloc in the European Parliament. From that moment on, British influence in the EU diminished. It was increasingly clear that, unlike under Conservative and Labour Governments in the past, the Conservative coalition Government in the UK were unable to get their way in debates in the EU because their influence was so diminished.

An example that I am particularly aggrieved about was the failure of our Government to protect the viability of cane sugar refining in the EU, as practised at the Tate & Lyle sugar refinery in my constituency. Previous Governments—Labour and Conservative—were able to secure the future of cane sugar refining. This Government, tragically, have failed. The failure of the British Government to achieve their objectives in negotiations in the EU is a reflection of the loss of UK influence. The most spectacular failure of all was, of course, David Cameron’s failure to secure a meaningful renegotiation in his last efforts as Prime Minister.

My conclusion is that what we actually need is a much more engaged British Government who are able to win arguments in Brussels, as previous British Governments were able to do. The failure of David Cameron’s attempted renegotiation highlights spectacularly just how big a problem has developed, but we should not now be pulling out all together and I will be opposing the Second Reading of the Bill tomorrow night.

Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill

Debate between John Redwood and Stephen Timms

Monday 21st January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

In this Bill the Government are punishing people who are already hard up for the failure of their economic policy. We were promised that the policy would lead to steady growth and falling unemployment, but it has failed. We have had a double-dip recession, and some predict that this week we will learn we are in a triple dip. Unemployment is now officially forecast to go up next year, so spending on unemployment benefits will go up, and borrowing will go up too.

The Chancellor’s policy has failed and the Government have decided to respond by forcing down the incomes of those whose incomes are already the lowest of all. Roughly speaking, the saving over the two years to which the Bill refers will be about the same as the increase in welfare spending resulting from the rise in unemployment forecast just between the Budget last year and the autumn statement.

The Government want to cut the incomes of the least well-off in real terms, not just for the coming year but, through this Bill, for the year after and the year after that. At the same time, in April they will give a tax cut to everybody earning more than £150,000 per year. That combination of policies will force up poverty in every part of the country, and it is a disgrace that Ministers are forcing this Committee stage into a single day.

This Bill is a bitter blow to large numbers of families—in work and out of work—who are on low incomes at the moment and struggling to make ends meet. Three new food banks open every week; last year a quarter of a million people received help from a food bank because they could not afford enough to eat, and this Bill will make matters significantly worse. It means that for three years, low-income families will get below-inflation increases. The number of people visiting a food bank will be higher this year and, because of this Bill, it will be higher still next year and higher again the year after that.

As Citizens Advice points out:

“The cumulative impact of capping the uprating of most benefits to no more than 1%”,

for the next three years, will lead to an exponential increase in net losses each year. Child Poverty Action Group stated that

“the poorer you are, the greater your loss.”

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Do the Opposition want to make it more worth while to be in work than out of work, and if so, how would they do it?

[Stephen Timms]

We certainly want it to be more worth while for people to be in work, but forcing down the incomes of those who are out of work is not the way to do it.

Clause 1 affects mainly out-of-work benefits, but people struggling to make ends meet in work are hit as well. Schedule 1(b) means that the personal allowance used in the calculation of housing benefit for people in work will go up by only 1%, irrespective of what happens to rent levels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I simply ask the hon. Lady to look at all the other things the Government have done and at the Institute for Fiscal Studies assessment of the consequences for child poverty. As I have said, its assessment is that the number of children living below the poverty line will increase by 400,000 by 2015 and by 800,000 by 2020 and that there will be an additional rise of 200,000 as a direct result of the Bill.

The general secretary of USDAW, the shop workers’ union, has spoken of

“a kick in the teeth for working people that will fill many households with despair.”

Disability Rights UK has said:

“We are fearful that the Welfare Benefits UP-rating Bill will… impoverish thousands more disabled people.”

Homeless Link has said that

“the proposals contained in the Bill are grossly unfair, hitting the poorest in society the hardest.”

[Mr Redwood]

I just wonder how the right hon. Gentleman can forecast with such certainty this abrupt turnaround and deterioration until 2020. Does his forecast assume that there will be a Conservative Government for that second period?

[Stephen Timms]

The right hon. Gentleman should ask the Institute for Fiscal Studies, where the Minister served with considerable distinction in the 1980s. It has been a reliable guide in the past and will be in the future. The assumption is that the existing policies will continue.

This is a terrible Bill that is being rushed through in a disgraceful manner. It will hit very hard those people who are already struggling to make ends meet. It will hit women disproportionately hard. It will hit disabled people, including everyone in the support group for employment and support allowance. It will hit children, pushing 200,000 below the poverty line.

At a time when the coalition Government are—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

I have already expressed the view that I did not come to Parliament to impose such restrictions on people with very little income, that that is a difficult thing to have to do but that I quite understand why Front Benchers are in that position.

Yes, I will trust Ministers’ judgment today but I am also saying to them that there are those two important conditions. They have to watch the situation because if inflation starts to rise too far, things will be too tough, and it would be wrong not to recognise that. If there is not a sustained increase in the number of jobs, that, too, will make the policy difficult to sustain. I am hoping that the economic policy can kick in with lower price rises and more jobs, which would make the measure a little less unpalatable. However, surely nobody can say that they want to do this—it is not very pleasant—but what else can we do?

[Stephen Timms]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech. However, is not a clear consequence of his argument that it is a serious mistake to be setting now the levels of benefits in two years’ time, when we just do not know what inflation will be in the meantime?

[Mr Redwood]

The Government are fighting for credibility with their general finances. They have a series of difficult decisions to make and have decided to make this decision. The Opposition cannot always come here and say that they must get the deficit down but never support anything that makes a contribution towards that. That is where they have great difficulties.

The Opposition have great difficulties today because they are coming here and saying that they do not like the measure, but will not support amendments that would mean that we were definitely going to pay a lot more. They have sufficient maturity to understand that the benefits bill is extremely large and difficult to manage.

I have one final thought to put to Ministers. The British public, who wish to see the benefit bill controlled and brought down, are keen for us to check up on eligibility, which causes more issues than anything else. Most of us feel extremely generous when it comes to eligibility for disabled people and we want the Government to do the best they possibly can, which might not be generous enough.

What we are worried about is extending eligibility too far—through the European Union rules, for example. I hope that that kind of thing will be pursued. I hear that the Prime Minister is now looking at the matter, but I do not think it is right that a large number of people should be able to come into the country and immediately start claiming benefits that other people, who have been settled here for a long time and are working hard, have had to pay into and make contributions towards. I hope that we will get better news and that there will be some kind of contributory principle or settlement before people can get those benefits, so that somebody who has been living here clearly becomes our responsibility after a sensible period.

Finance Bill

Debate between John Redwood and Stephen Timms

Monday 12th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

Has the hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber while I have been talking? The first part of my speech was about bad cases of evasion in which a company has deliberately misrepresented its financial condition. Like him, I think that those cases should be taken seriously, and prosecution should result. I am going on to the second set of cases, in which evasion is thought to have taken place according to the Revenue, but when we look at what is going on there is a genuine disagreement between one group of tax experts, lawyers and company advisers and another lot advising the Revenue, which sometimes needs to consult counsel on these complicated matters to try to reach a conclusion. Such cases are often sorted out slightly more amicably, and rightly so, because the companies concerned were obviously not trying to do down the Revenue but to pay the minimum amount of tax to comply with the law, as most sensible people try to do, and there was a disagreement that had to be sorted out sensibly. That might result in financial penalties or in an agreement not to have financial penalties, but usually the Revenue has a certain amount of strength in having its way.

That is evasion, and then there is avoidance, which is much more problematic. I am sure that billions-worth of avoidance is going on all the time, because it is a perfectly legal approach; one man’s avoidance is another man’s sensible tax planning. That is why I asked the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington for an example relating to personal income tax, which is easier for people listening in to this debate to understand. Many small savers switch from tax-paying savings to tax-free savings, which is avoidance of tax, is it not? They realise that they can do better by having a tax-exempt savings product; surely we should not condemn that, because it is about someone trying to get the most for their money. Indeed, that is something that the Government positively encourage. They encourage tax avoidance because they say, “We have the unique power to provide tax-exempt products for savings, and we want you to buy ours rather than the taxed private sector product.”

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) asked a telling question, and I am not sure what the right hon. Gentleman’s answer is. The question is this: does he deprecate any tax avoidance, or is he saying that as long as it is strictly in compliance with the law, anything goes? As he knows, there have been some very ingenious, and indeed expensive, schemes used by companies to avoid paying tax, clearly contrary to the spirit of the law but arguably in compliance with the letter of the law. Does he not deprecate that kind of activity?

[Mr Redwood]

I do not want to get drawn into the moral issue of deprecating or not deprecating: what I am interested in is the efficiency of revenue collection and the clarity of the law for the people having to meet it. It is the job of this House to have a clear tax law that people have to follow, and we often have these debates to try to carry out that task. Sometimes tax law is so complicated, or people outside this House are so ingenious, that there are ways round it that I might disagree with and the right hon. Gentleman will often disagree with, and that is when we come back to legislate again. We say, “We haven’t done our job well enough. People are avoiding tax more easily than we would like them to be able to, and so we’re going to add another complication”—or sometimes even a simplification or clarification—“to the tax law to try to capture that.” That is the job of this House. The shadow spokesman and I will sometimes agree that an avoidance scheme goes too far and we need to legislate to stop it; on other occasions, we will disagree. I will say, “That’s perfectly rational tax planning—don’t be such a party pooper”, he will say, “I don’t like people getting away with that kind of thing”, and we will have our disagreements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but what else is it? Why are people investing more than they otherwise would have done? Because they are allowed to avoid tax and pay less tax than they otherwise would.

[Stephen Timms]

The right hon. Gentleman is uncharacteristically abusing the English language. To say that something that is explicitly provided for in the law is tax avoidance is not what most people mean by the term.

[Mr Redwood]

Fine—that is a very good linguistic point, and if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to define tax avoidance more narrowly as actions that we all disagree with, we can do that and it makes the debate much simpler. However, he has to understand that there are a series of grey areas, and it is not a black-and-white matter. There is not a set of actions that everybody agrees are tax avoidance and another set that everybody agrees are perfectly reasonable incentives or sensible ways of paying less tax.

Let us get on to the more difficult corporation tax cases, having dealt with the investment one—everybody in the House thinks that investment is a good thing and that corporations should therefore pay less tax one way or another, either through the rate of tax or through explicit relief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Timms]

I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Lincoln (Karl MᶜCartney) on his maiden speech. He launched some important claims on behalf of his constituents. I was interested in the case that he made for reintroducing indexation and taper relief on capital gains tax. I suspect that these debates will gain a new currency, given the increase in the rate of capital gains tax that the Bill introduces. I also welcome the evidence of independent thinking that he showed the Committee today, and I appreciate, as many will, his generous remarks about Gillian Merron, who was certainly a very popular Member of the House, as well as a popular feature in the local press in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for raising this issue. He has done us a service by raising some important points. I do not agree with his criticism of the previous Government in that respect, as I shall explain, but it is right that we should have this debate in this part of our consideration of the Bill.

I enjoyed listening to what the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson) said a moment ago. What he was saying, I think, was that he was expecting the new Government to simplify the tax system. Well, maybe, although I do not think that there is much simplification in the Bill. In fact, there is a major new complication, as we will see when we come to clause 2. For the first time ever, the rate of capital gains tax is being changed in the middle of a year. That is a significant new complexity that the Bill introduces. Although I am touched by his faith, I suspect that he might find himself somewhat disappointed as time goes on.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington was right to pay tribute to the work of Richard Murphy and the tax justice campaign. I want to pay particular tribute to Richard Murphy for developing, and first arguing for, the idea of country-by-country reporting. We are debating the avoidance, and indeed evasion, of corporation tax, and of course, that is a matter not only for the UK but for developing countries on a large scale as well. Richard Murphy was the first person to argue that companies should report, on a country-by-country basis, the profits that they make in each country and the tax that they pay in each country, so that everyone can see if there is a mismatch between the two.

The previous Government supported that call, and I am pleased that the OECD is taking the matter up. I think that we are now going to see some progress on that front, thanks to Richard’s efforts. I note from his blog that he has been on the receiving end of some unwarranted online harassment recently on account of his work. I certainly wish him well in what he is doing. However, I am not entirely persuaded by his criticism, or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington, of the work of HMRC on the tax gap. As my hon. Friend rightly mentioned, however, it is inevitable that any estimates in this area will be uncertain because no one knows precisely what is being hidden from the tax authorities.

Narrowing the tax gap was an important priority for the previous Government, and I was grateful for the comments made by the hon. Member for Southport (Dr Pugh) and by the Minister in the debate on tax avoidance that was held in Westminster Hall on 14 June. In that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) set out the key elements of the progress that the previous Government had made on tackling the problem of avoidance. One of the initiatives that we took was to propose a voluntary code of practice for the banks, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us more about this when he winds up the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds East (Mr Mudie) mentioned one of the banks a few moments ago. The idea was that banks would sign up to the code of practice and, in doing so, would agree to stick not only to the law on the payment of taxes but to the spirit of the law as well.

Having listened to the arguments put forward by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), I imagine that he would be opposed to that initiative, because he would feel that it should simply be a matter of asking, “Are you or are you not complying with the letter of the law?” and that, if a problem arose, the Government should legislate to close the loophole. The problem with that approach is that we can get into an arms race, as we have certainly done on many occasions, in which the Government and Parliament agree on changes to the law and everyone knows perfectly well what they mean, but the banks then commission ingenious accountants to find ways round the spirit of the law, even though the letter of the law is being complied with. If we were to stick with the approach for which the right hon. Gentleman is arguing, Parliament would then have to close the loophole, perhaps a year later, and the circle would continue to go round. He made an interesting case, but we have to find a way of breaking that vicious circle, because huge amounts of money are being spent by taxpayers and by HMRC, and, in the end, nobody benefits.

[Mr Redwood]

The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that there can be an arms race, but would he also acknowledge that, while quite a lot of companies accept that they need to pay a fair whack of tax, there are many judgments involved? Those companies seek advice on that judgment, but they do not always get the same advice as HMRC. It is not that they are all trying to cheat the taxpayer; these are complicated matters and a view needs to be taken on cost overhead allocation, transfer prices and so on. Judgments are reached and the Revenue disagrees, but these are judgment matters, and this subject is not easy to handle.

[Stephen Timms]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that. I entirely accept that that often happens, but I hope that he will accept that there are also people who commission very highly paid accountants to find ways of getting round the law. Everyone involved in that practice knows perfectly well that they are going against the spirit of what Parliament intended, and that is the kind of damaging avoidance that we need to bear down on.