European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Owen Smith and John Redwood

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

[Owen Smith]

I am pleased with that, and I hope that we will vote on it tomorrow.

I am insisting that we consider a second referendum—a confirmatory or ratificatory referendum, or whatever we want to call it—because I sincerely believe that Brexit will be a disaster for our country, and one that will cost us and future generations in lost trade, revenues and opportunities. I equally believe that it is a disaster for us to be dividing the country on this issue, as we have been, in respect of our values and the other crucial things we hold in concert.

[John Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Owen Smith]

I will not. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken a lot already.

It was deeply destructive for us to have engaged in Brexit and unleashed a catalytic force of destructive politics, not just in this country but across the west. It is to my eternal regret that Parliament launched down this route without being sufficiently vigilant or diligent with regard to the risks we faced in the referendum or the nature of the referendum we were offering to the country. It was a profoundly flawed referendum in many ways, and one that many across the House feel could have been dramatically improved with greater scrutiny and care. Why did we not offer that scrutiny? I do not think that many Members on either side of the debate seriously thought we would lose. There was a widespread view that the referendum was agreed for ideological reasons—to solve the culture wars that have raged in the Tory party for 30-odd years—and it was not considered carefully enough.

The House has an opportunity to make amends for the mistake that we—not the people—made. The people voted on the terms and the question we offered them, with the information we provided and on the basis of the 50%-plus-1 margin we put into statute. We have an opportunity to rectify some of those mistakes, and I feel that we should. We should follow the view of the Brexit Secretary when he was on the Back Benches, and, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, we should have a final confirmatory referendum.

We had a mandate referendum, the result of which was that we should leave the EU, but we do not know what the terms of that leaving will be. It is perfectly legitimate for us to consider what they might be. It would not be to deny democracy to do that; it would be to double down on it. The problem with simply pushing for a vote in this place on the terms of the deal is that we run the risk of leaving the people doubly dissatisfied. It is perfectly possible for this House to reject the prospect of our falling out of the European Union on WTO terms, because of the costs that will become apparent when we see the extra costs for our car production, for chemicals, for financial services and for all the other things that would see their tariff price rise for export out of this country. It is perfectly possible, as the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield said, that we start to see a change in the country’s views in respect of Brexit when those things happen.

Welfare Reform and Work Bill

Debate between Owen Smith and John Redwood

Tuesday 27th October 2015 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

I will not give way again.

The problem with this change is that it will simply compound that fundamental mistrust. Before the last election, the Prime Minister said, on live national television, that he was not going to cut child tax credits, but he is going to do so. That was a fundamental misleading of the British public. Other Ministers also made categorical statements. When asked whether the Conservative party would cut tax credits, one of them said:

“"No; we are going to freeze them for two years; we are not going to cut them.”

That was a fundamental untruth, and the country knows it.

Unfortunately, when that is added to the Government’s smoke and mirrors and what they say about how they intend to offset the impact of these cuts, it is clear that we as a group—and the Conservatives as a political party—are deepening what is already a profound mistrust in our politics. For the Conservatives to describe themselves as the workers’ party is laughable. Theirs is the party that is cutting the incomes of the workers of Britain, and they should be ashamed of that. They should stand up today and vote with us for new clause 1, and repeal the tax credit cuts.

[John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Prosperity, not austerity: that is what we want. My consistent advice to Ministers dealing with economic matters and benefits is that they should always have at the forefront of their minds the need for everything they do to promote less austerity and more prosperity for the many, because we wish to have a more prosperous people. The outlines of how we do that are clear, and I fully support the Government’s vision and objectives.

The first thing to do is promote work. We need to make sure that people come out of unemployment and into work; that people who are working part-time but want to work full-time have the opportunity to go on to work full-time; and that people in full-time work that is not well paid have the chance to be promoted into a better-paid job, and to get better skills and training and work with their employer so that they can have a more productive and better-paid job. In that area, this Government and the predecessor coalition have been so much more successful than the Labour Government of 2005 to 2010. We know how austerity for the many is created: by following the Labour Government’s policies of 2005 to 2010, when they increased borrowing and spending, and combined that with over-lax regulation of bank capital and cash, which I warned them about prior to the crunch. When they put those three things in a heady mix, they brought the economy down, a large number of people lost their job altogether, a large number had to take a pay cut to keep their job and most people lost their bonuses or their opportunities to work overtime because the great recession that was unleashed on this country did so much damage. The first thing, therefore, that the British people want is to be secure in the knowledge that the economic policies being used are prudent and sensible, so that there is more chance of more people working and of people having better- paid jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Redwood]

Yes, some people cannot increase their hours or, for good reason, do not want to increase them because they are already working long hours. I have already described the actions they or their employers can take, and that the Government can encourage. We want these people to have better opportunity and more skill, and to work with their employers to raise productivity to justify pay rises. The Government, with the full support of the Opposition, are using the force of the law to increase minimum wages, as part of the policy of driving wages upwards. But the only way we can succeed in getting wages in this country up to levels we would all find acceptable is through a productivity revolution. It has to come by working smarter and better, not necessarily by working longer hours or by working harder, with the right investment and the right back-up from employers, so that people can earn more and justify higher earnings.

[Owen Smith]

Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we are talking about two tribes here? It is not necessarily people who are on working tax credits who are on the minimum wage—indeed, the overlap is only about 25%, so an increase in the minimum wage will miss 75% of those tax credit recipients.

[John Redwood]

I do not think it is very nice to say that people belong to “tribes”; we are in one country and we are trying to promote the greater prosperity of the many. I am surprised by that lapse of language, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that some people who will face a reduction in tax credits are not going to benefit from the minimum wage because they are already earning more than that. That is clearly true.

[Owen Smith]

It is 75%—

[John Redwood]

If the hon. Gentleman would listen carefully, he would know that that is why I say I support a strategy for prosperity that first promotes more people into better pay. I am not just talking about those who are currently on a low wage; I want someone on a better wage also to have the opportunity for more pay. Some of my constituents do; they will be promoted, they will work for smart employers in smarter ways, and they will get pay rises, although not all will. The more the Government can do to help, encourage and support, so that many more people can get those opportunities of better pay, the more we will like it. I hope the Opposition parties will agree that that is the best way to greater prosperity. It is also the best way to better jobs. If someone goes to work every day thinking that next year they might have a better job, a pay rise or a bonus they can benefit from, they will go with more of a spring in their step than if they are going to a low-paid job with a bad employer who is not giving them any options and not giving them a break in life. [Interruption.] I see that some Opposition Members think that that is a funny idea, but I hope they would join me in recommending this approach to employers in their constituency as well as in mine, as that is how we create a more prosperous society. I am just trying to stress that we also need to get taxes down.

That deals with the second pillar of this excellent strategy. We need better work and more better-paid work, and less tax on that work so that people are more prosperous. We then come to the difficult bit, which is the point of the row today, all of last week and probably all of next week, by the looks of how Parliament is going at the moment. The issue is: at what rate do you withdraw the benefits support as people become more prosperous because they are in work, not out of work, because they are in better-paid work and because they are paying less tax? There are difficult judgments to be made, and I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is in listening mode. I look forward to his autumn statement—unlike the Labour party, I will be looking at all three elements of the package. I will be looking at pay and tax, as well as benefit withdrawal.

Perhaps unlike Labour, I want to end up in a world where far fewer people are on benefits, because their pay and the tax cuts are sufficient to give them a better lifestyle. We will then have a more affordable welfare system that enables us to run an economic policy more likely to deliver better prospects, more jobs and more success for business. As some of my Conservative colleagues have sought to point out, the problem the Opposition face is that no answer is coming from them. We know that they were able to overspend, over-borrow and crash the economy. We are now waiting to hear from them about how they would get the money under control, were they to be trusted again with government. We know that they do not want to cut non-benefit expenditure, so surely they have to accept the case I am making: that we need to get more people out of benefits altogether, and that requires a combination of the good things—promoting work, promoting better pay and lower taxes—and the not-so-good things, such as actually having to make some difficult choices on benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is being gracious in giving way. He talks about us all wanting to avoid a disincentive to work extra hours, but does he not accept that that disincentive will be increased by reducing the lower earnings threshold and increasing the taper, thereby increasing the amount of money that is taken away for every extra hour worked and every extra pound earned?

[John Redwood]

I have already been quite honest in saying that Governments face a difficult choice in this regard: do they want fewer people facing a sharper taper, or more people facing a gentler taper? There are no easy answers. I look forward to hearing the Government’s judgment when they have completed their listening and thinking. Again, the Opposition are refusing to see all three parts of the package. It is not possible to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question as simply as he would like, because working out whether people are better off or worse off, and by how much, depends on what else happens with taxation, rates of pay, inflation and all the other things that are going on.

My advice to the Government is that their strategy is absolutely right: get more from pay, more from tax cuts and then cut the benefits, because people will not need them as much. They must listen carefully to criticisms, for example if their changes are going too far and too fast, or if they catch some people we do not want to catch. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will want to return to those points in his autumn statement and tell us his thinking. However, the direction of travel must not be simply to make big increases in benefits again; it must be to find other answers so that more people can enjoy prosperity from work, earnings and lower taxes.

Finance (No. 4) Bill

Debate between Owen Smith and John Redwood

Wednesday 18th April 2012 Commons Chamber

[Owen Smith]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood—the first chance that I have had to say that today.

Clause 209 and our amendment to it, amendment 5, relate to the bank levy. The point of the amendment is to raise the issues that Opposition Members believe ought to be at the forefront of the Government’s thinking and at the heart of their Budget: what we do to stimulate growth and, in particular, to generate jobs in our economy. Crucially, on a day when we have seen yet another report, this time from the Institute for Public Policy Research, on the scarring impact of long-term unemployment on, in particular, young people, and on a day when we still see 1 million young people languishing on the dole, it seems to me a very easy argument and a very simple point to make to the Government that such issues ought to be at the forefront of not just our mind but theirs.

This aspect of the Bill, the bank levy, offers an opportunity for the Government to do something to fill the gaping hole at the heart of their Budget when it comes to creating growth and generating jobs. There is not a single word in the Budget or in the Bill about the problem of youth jobs, and that is a crying shame, so I hope that the Government will later today amend that omission.

In a moment I shall discuss the background to the bank levy, but to begin with I shall draw together some of the common themes that run through my remarks and the Bill—themes from the debate that we have just had on clause 1 and this debate on clause 209 and the bank levy.

First, I want to raise some questions about the Government’s competence. Clause 1, the profound uncertainty about Government decisions, the other more general decisions in the Budget in relation to VAT on caravans and on pasties, which we will debate later, and the various other curious measures that they have brought forward have all already raised enormous and pressing questions about the competence of the Chancellor and the Government when it comes to managing our economy.

Secondly, there are questions about certainty. Earlier we debated the HMRC report on the Exchequer effect of the 50p rate, and Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) asked significant questions about the accuracy of the Government’s modelling in that report and the accuracy of the claims that only £100 million will be lost to the Exchequer. There are further questions to be asked about the accuracy with which the Government have measured the impact of the bank levy to date and juxtaposed it with the rates of revenue which were raised by the bank bonus tax that the previous, Labour Government introduced.

Thirdly, there is a crucial set of questions about values and priorities, because both the clauses that we have debated to date and the clause before us raise questions about the priorities and values of this Government versus those of the Opposition. Those questions do not reflect terribly well on this Government, Mr Gale, it is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair—[Interruption.] Sir Roger, of course. How on earth could I have forgotten? Sir Roger, welcome. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I suggest that the Government could simply do the decent thing today by deciding to retain the bank levy but also introduce a bank bonus. That would be the wise thing to do, and it would set about raising the revenue that could be used to try to create 100,000 jobs for young people.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Does the shadow Minister think that the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds HBOS need less profit and less retained cash to get out of the mess they are in, or more?

[Owen Smith]

I would be terribly happy for all the banks, including RBS and HBOS, to make more profit. That would clearly be a very good thing for the British economy; we are entirely agreed on that. At the moment, however, they are not being asked to bear a particularly heavy burden, and nor are the other banks that are already making significant profits—lower than in previous years, but still significant. It is not easy to square that with the Conservative Government’s previous commitment to honour our intention to make those with the broadest shoulders bear the greatest burden. The Government’s decisions on the 50p rate and the bank levy do not bear out their former agreement with us; rather, they speak of a Government who have decided to make a different set of decisions over the past few years, as borne out most recently by the 50p tax rate. The Government should think again about how much money they are raising from the banks and what is the appropriate amount that they should raise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Owen Smith]

That would have been a good intervention, were it not for the fact that the £3.5 billion that was realised is written in black and white on page 101 of the OBR document. It is clear how much money was raised—£3.5 billion. [Interruption.] If the Minister wants to intervene to correct me on that, he can do so.

[Mr Redwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Owen Smith]

Yes.

[Mr Redwood]

The shadow Minister is not completing the thought. We are not disputing the gross amount. We are asking how much other revenue was lost because of the behavioural consequences. He has agreed that the purpose of the bank bonus tax was to drive down bonuses. Assuming that there was some success, the Exchequer must have lost a pile of money in other taxes.

[Owen Smith]

The right hon. Gentleman is right that there would have been behavioural impacts. We do not dispute that, nor do we dispute that there would have been behavioural impacts in respect of the 50p rate. What we dispute is that the behavioural impacts would be as significant as those projected in the document on the 50p rate and those alleged by the Government on the bank levy. Given how fallible those projections have been shown to be in today’s Treasury Committee report and in any number of comments written about the HMRC report on clause 1 and the 50p rate, we are entirely right to question the basis of the assumptions both on the 50p rate and on the bank levy.

[Mr Redwood]

If the hon. Gentleman reads the Red Book further, he will see that £4 billion-plus more a year will be raised from self-assessment income tax under the 45p rate than under the 50p rate. Indeed, in the year to April 2012 there was a 9% reduction in self-assessment income tax, because the top income tax payers paid themselves 25% less than the year before.

[Owen Smith]

At the danger of being ruled out of order for repeating today’s earlier debates—[Interruption.] The Financial Secretary says from a sedentary position that I am on the back foot, but I am absolutely not. I have been pointing out to his colleagues for the past couple of hours that the volume of behavioural change anticipated in the Exchequer analysis is fundamentally flawed. The taxable income elasticity point chosen by the Exchequer to derive that volume of behavioural change is completely outwith the normal delta used by economists to assess the elasticity of top incomes. [Interruption.] No, we are talking about the future. We are talking about what behavioural change there will be and what the yield will therefore be in future.

That takes us to the central question of the Government’s competence. There are questions to be asked about the competence of the way in which they set up the bank levy. Why on earth did the Government choose in the first instance a rate of 0.045%, only to have to increase it five times in the past 18 months to hit their annual yield target of £2.5 billion? I would be delighted to hear the Financial Secretary explain that to us. Why did the Government do it that way around? It does not make any sense to me. It would have been more sensible either to have stuck with the payroll tax, as we suggested, or to have arrived at a hard figure and allowed the yield to set the rate, not the rate to set the yield.

Thus we come to the question of how the Government can keeping saying that they are certain that the bank levy will yield £2.5 billion each year. It did not in its first year, when it hit £1.8 billion. The reason the Treasury team is continually having to tweak the rate is that it is not certain how much money it is going to yield.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

I remind hon. Members that I am an adviser to an industrial company and to a small investment management business. I am not a tax adviser, so I feel able to participate in this debate.

I was interested in the Opposition amendment and it turns out to be rather disappointing, for a number of reasons. It asks the Government to produce a report

“on how the additional revenue…would be invested to create new jobs and tackle unemployment.”

As phrased, it does not actually ask for a report on how a bank payroll tax would work, although that is perhaps what Labour Members wanted, too. Interestingly, the Opposition have shifted from wanting a bank bonus tax—a tax originally described as a “one-off” and clearly aimed at very high earners in certain kinds of investment bank, which everybody loves to hate at the moment—to wanting in this amendment a general bank payroll tax. I ask them to think about what that means, because most of the people on the payrolls of our leading large banks are, of course, modestly remunerated. This payroll tax would give a further incentive to bank directors and managers to try to get rid of personnel they are employing, because if we tax something, we clearly do not like it. The Opposition say that they do not like payroll, so they are trying to tax payroll.

[Owen Smith]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me this opportunity to clarify the wording—[Interruption.] No, there is no “Ah ha” moment, I am afraid. The wording we have used reflects the wording used by the OBR to describe the temporary bank payroll tax. It is no more than that.

[Mr Redwood]

It is worth teasing these things out, because I think we have had confirmation from the Opposition that they have in mind a general payroll tax, which would hit people other than the very high earners in investment banks. The amendment does not say “a bonus tax for investment bankers”, for example; it says a “payroll tax”. One therefore has to assume it would affect conduct.

[Owen Smith]

With the greatest respect, either the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said or he is deliberately misrepresenting what I said—mischievously, I suggest. We were not intending to do anything other than replicate that which we have done previously, so a bonus tax is what we were talking about. The language adopted in the amendment is reflective of that used by the Government and the OBR—that is all.

[Mr Redwood]

Well, I think we are very grateful for that clarification. We await the details that, unfortunately, we did not get from the Opposition about how they would target the measure, whom they have in mind, how much those people would have to earn and how much bonus they would get. The point rests on perhaps a narrower base than the words in the amendment lead one to infer. One has to assume that the tax will lead banks to employ fewer people.

The tax that the Government have adopted also has consequences. They have decided to get extra money out of the banks by taxing the size of their balance sheets. I think the Government might be right that that is a slightly better way of doing things than taxing personnel costs because it is more general, but that too has adverse consequences. All taxation has adverse consequences as well as some positive uses. The Government tax encourages banks to shrink their balance sheets because they do not wish to pay too much tax. What does that mean in normal language? It means they want fewer deposits and less share capital and that they want to lend less money to people because the way to reduce the tax burden is to have less taxable capacity in the United Kingdom. The tax therefore has a cost. I do not disagree with what the Government are doing: I understand the awful financial situation that the country finds itself in and I can see how this tax is more popular than many others, but let us not pretend that these things are costless. At a time when we need more growth and more loans of a suitable kind to people who can afford to pay them back in order to create demand and more loans to smaller and medium-sized enterprises at a time when they need to grow, taxes on banks are not terribly helpful.

I am enough of a politician to know that banks are very unpopular and that it is an easy hit for politicians who want to improve their own popularity to take a position against the banks, so I am being something of a foolish hero by standing up and saying that not all banks are bad and that quite a lot of people who work for banks are perfectly decent people doing a decent job. The banking service that is supplied around the country to small and medium-sized enterprises and to you and me, Sir Roger, is very necessary, and sometimes it is well handled and well conducted.

There is a dreadful run of debate in this country that everything to do with the word “bank” is evil and wrong, that it serves the banks right and that everything has to be directed against them, but we have to work with the banks—the good, the bad and the indifferent—because we need them to be on the side of economic growth and recovery to tackle the very real problem that the Opposition have identified in the second part of their amendment—tackling unemployment. We need to get unemployment down, and one way of doing that is by having a strong banking sector working closely in partnership with the small and medium-sized enterprise sector and with those people who have a reasonable income and might want to borrow more to buy things and create demand.

Finance Bill

Debate between Owen Smith and John Redwood

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman is making my case for me; I am saying that the 1.3 million forecast figure was an error, and that it will be seen as such. He rightly says that the Treasury can make mistakes. On this occasion, we are pleased to say that an independent judge outside is reviewing all the facts and figures and the working papers and coming up with a forecast that reflects the views of many more people outside the Treasury.

[Owen Smith]

Given the right hon. Gentleman’s admission that the OBR’s forecast on job losses may be wrong—[Interruption.] Well, if he was not implying that, that is what I took him to be implying. Irrespective of that, I want to ask about the OBR forecast’s and the leaked Treasury document’s anticipation of increases in private sector jobs over the next five years. Given the right hon. Gentleman’s long experience of economic matters, will he comment on the plausibility of that suggestion, given that during no period in the past 40 years has that volume of private sector jobs been created, apart from in the early 1980s—and then only through the fiction of the privatisations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

As the hon. Gentleman should be aware, the outgoing Government’s capital spending plans have not been changed by this Government. We have to accept the previous Government’s plans for a modest increase in the capital stock of the state over a period of great stress in the budgets. But the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme and its replacement with a programme that gives better value for money is exactly what we want. The trouble with Building Schools for the Future was that there were three years of delay and £10 million of consultancy costs before bricks and mortar or steel and glass could even start to be laid.

What my right hon. and hon. Friends rightly want to do is cut out all that nonsense, stop wasting all the money on the documentation, delays, consultancies and all the rest of it, and have a more straightforward approach, so that a bigger proportion of the inherited capital expenditure budget can be spent on bricks and mortar and bricklayers’ wages, as the hon. Gentleman wants.

[Owen Smith]

Is the right hon. Gentleman worried in any way by the remarks, made during the radio discussion that he took part in this morning, about the £50 billion of contracts that would be taken out of the construction industry as a result of the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme? Will that not have a detrimental impact on the economy—specifically, on jobs in construction?

[Mr Redwood]

Once again, the hon. Gentleman is not listening. I was explaining that the coalition Government have made no change to the capital expenditure line that they inherited from the outgoing Government. What they will do is get more bang for the buck—to get more spending on construction, relative to the total investment line in the Budget. On the radio this morning, I was able to satisfy the other people in the discussion; the independent forecaster’s overall forecasts for the economy say that investment is going to rise. There will be an overall increase in investment because more homes will be built over the next five years than the pathetically low figure that was reached under Labour. There will be more investment in housing improvement, and more investment by the private sector. That more than offsets the decline in the investment programme in the public sector inherited from Labour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

That is what I have been explaining to the right hon. Gentleman. We are in this position because everything has been so awful. The private sector has just been through a couple of years when it has invested practically nothing because companies could not get any money and were not making much profit. Now, profit margins are growing, there is a bit more money around and they are getting more confident for the future.

It would be much better if Labour Members got behind their voters and constituents, who want the jobs that we wish to see created, got behind the recovery that everybody else is forecasting, and started to live in the real world. They presided over the collapse. Throughout their years in office, manufacturing fell, whereas in the Tory years before that, manufacturing rose. We want to get manufacturing rising again. From that point of view, the one good thing that they did was to preside over a collapse in the value of the pound. They probably allowed it to collapse a bit too much, and it is beginning to rise again under the new Government. That gives those in manufacturing a huge opportunity to make better profit margins, to invest more money, and to produce more. That is exactly what they are beginning to do, and there will be a beneficial effect.

[Owen Smith]

In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman suggests about manufacturing, is he not worried when he sees the prediction in the Deloitte manufacturing index that over the next five years our manufacturing will decline, not grow, and that we will shift from our admittedly low position of 17th on that index to 20th?

[Mr Redwood]

A shift in the relative position predicted by someone else does not necessarily mean that manufacturing is going to decline. The figures in the official forecast, and I think in most sensible forecasts outside, show that manufacturing will recover from the very low base that it reached in 2009-10. That is what is needed, and we need to have policies that do just that.