No-deal Brexit: Short Positions against the Pound

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 30th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The Government are doing what they are doing because we believe it is right to leave the European Union on 31 October, as we all promised that we would. That is absolutely what animates our actions; any suggestion to the contrary is not just wrong but offensive.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

How does the Minister defend a situation in which anyone who is caught insider gambling deliberately to fix the result of a game of cricket goes to jail, but anyone who is insider gambling deliberately to crash the economy is likely to end up in the House of Lords?

[Mr Clarke]

That is a very serious suggestion. I would not recommend that the hon. Gentleman repeat it outside the Chamber.

NHS Pensions: Taxation

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 8th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

I will make sure this is immediately drawn to the attention of the Prime Minister.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I place on record the fact that I am married to a GP, although she is unlikely to be affected by the changes.

I recently attended a briefing for Fife’s elected representatives at which Fife Health and Social Care Partnership confirmed that an inability to recruit GPs means that the out-of-hours GP service in Glenrothes will remain closed almost permanently. We were given an update on the worrying number of GP practices—more than one in five—that are having difficulty recruiting and retaining GPs. The director of the partnership told us in terms that the pensions issue is a real one for medical staff, not just for GPs. In that context, it is not acceptable for the Treasury or, indeed, the Home Office, under reserved powers, to lob a hand grenade into our health service and expect the four devolved health services to fix the problem. Will the Chief Secretary tell us what assessment was made of the impact of the changes on the health service? Will she undertake to publish that assessment in full?

[Elizabeth Truss]

This is a matter that took place before I was a Minister in the Treasury, but I commit to find the relevant paperwork and send it to the hon. Gentleman.

Loan Charge

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 11th April 2019 Commons Chamber

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the chance to sum up in this debate. Even without the request for brevity, I do not think my voice would last much longer than the few minutes that I have.

I do not know if the sponsors of the motion intend to divide the House tonight, but I think that would be a mistake. Everyone would support it, with the possible exception of the Minister. We have heard rumours that they will artificially force a Division, but I am not sure that this is the right occasion to do that.

Last week, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) reminded us that three of the main tenets of a tax system are certainty, fairness and convenience. Another one is that tax has to be mandatory. If it is too easy to dodge the tax, it will not work. There is a distinction, which a recent speaker highlighted, between the vast majority of the 50,000 people we are talking about—who may have been naive or made the mistake of trusting their professional advisers too much, and who may be mildly culpable but certainly were not culpable to the extent that they deserve to go through the stress that they are going through now—and a fairly small number of people who knew what they were doing. They are probably hiding at the back now, hoping that the justifiable cases will get some sort of dispensation and they can go through on their coat-tails. One of the criticisms of HMRC in the past has been that it has not distinguished between the people who made mistakes—who maybe took a bit of a chance, not really understanding what they were doing—and those who went into this with their eyes open and the deliberate intention of dodging substantial amounts of tax. That has to include the promoters and employers of the schemes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Ross Thomson), in his opening comments last week, pointed out that many of the companies that are most culpable have conveniently been wound up. The people who set them up have not been wound up. They are still there and they can still be traced. They are running similar schemes in similar companies. One of the things that the independent inquiry that is clearly needed should be able to do is to look into whether there is a case for lifting the usual veil that separates limited companies from those who run them. If company directors are found guilty of personal misconduct, sometimes they can be held liable for the wrongdoings of the company, despite the fact that legally they are two different persons. That may have to be looked at on this occasion.

Three questions have to be asked. This is quite a task for HMRC because I want it to do this for each one of the 50,000 people, so that each case is looked at on its merits. First, was the tax liability properly and legally established at the time? In many of the cases we are talking about, that may have been the case. Secondly, did HMRC take reasonable and intelligent steps to identify and notify the debt and to attempt to recover it at the time? In many other civil debt cases, if the person who is owed the money does nothing about it for years and then tries to claim the money with interest, it is time-barred and they cannot do it. Why is HMRC not subject to the same restriction?

Finally, and most importantly, is HMRC taking recovery action now that is fair, proportionate and reasonable, given the individual circumstances of the person they are pursuing? In many of the cases we have heard about today and even more so last week, there is a serious question to be asked there. I am not asking whether HMRC is acting within its legal powers; I am asking whether it is acting fairly and reasonably. Sometimes HMRC’s powers do not require it to act reasonably and fairly.

Actions need to be suspended so that the issue can be sorted out. At this stage, I cannot support a full amnesty because an inquiry would identify the people who should be held to account and who should pay back substantial amounts of back tax. I cannot support the full wording of the early-day motion on an immediate amnesty, but that may change once we have dealt with the people who set up the companies—not those who were on £30,000 a year, like most of the cases we are talking about—and were raking in profits of millions of pounds and paying heehaw in tax. They are the people HMRC should be going for. If HMRC did that, the amount of money recovered would be a significant proportion of the total for which we are now pursuing 70 of my constituents and 50,000 of our constituents collectively.

Clydesdale Bank and SMEs

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on the fact that there will not be a one-size-fits-all approach across the whole of the United Kingdom, and the banks are willing to look at individual solutions in different circumstances. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss that further.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

There is probably no more appropriate Member to have raised this than my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark and Hamilton East (Angela Crawley) because, as Members will appreciate, Clydesdale is in fact the historical name for a great part of the constituency that she represents.

Does the Minister accept that no form of redress can ever be good enough once a business has gone bust and the owners of the business and their families have been put through 10 years or more of hell? What assurances can he give us that any future scheme of redress will become active and effective when there is still time to save businesses that, in the vast majority of cases, have operated lawfully within the rules and have been successful businesses? These businesses would not have been targeted if they had not been successful.

[John Glen]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. He expresses exactly why I think it is so urgent that we get on and get the banks to engage in this historical dispute resolution mechanism and look at the detail, so that they are in a position to give compensation urgently. People have been waiting too long, and where such evidence exists, the banks need to respond appropriately and swiftly.

Draft Financial Regulators' Powers (Technical Standards Etc.) and Markets in Financial Instruments (Amendment) (Eu Exit) Regulations 2019

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 General Committees

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and Members will be relieved to hear that I intend to be brief. That is not a matter of inclination—not my style at all—but a matter of necessity before my voice gives up altogether.

I did not catch the number of statutory instruments that the Minister was so proud to say have been pushed through, or how many still need to be resolved before 29 March, but coming from a Government who boast about easing the burden of regulation on businesses, that seems more than a shade ironic. None of those regulations are designed to make anything better—at best, they will keep us where we would have been had the Government’s unilateral decisions following the referendum been different.

Having set the ball rolling, set the timetable, and created the danger of a no-deal Brexit, and having identified the avalanche of legislation that will be needed to cope with that, the Government failed to timetable the legislation properly. That is why, two years after article 50 was triggered, there is such a panic to get all these regulations through, and why Parliament is sitting now when Members should be back in their constituencies working. That was done not to give time to debate regulations such as these, but to allow the clock to tick forward for another four or five sitting days, so that the regulations can legally be considered before 29 March.

It is extremely concerning, although perhaps no wonder, that major financial services, businesses and employers have already decided that they do not have confidence in the United Kingdom, London or Scotland as centres of financial services to the same extent as they did previously. That does not mean that those services will disappear but—depending on which analysts we believe—between €1 trillion and €2 trillion of assets are being, or have been moved out of the United Kingdom as a result of Brexit. It will take a long time for that confidence to be restored and those jobs to return.

The Minister has consulted the financial services sector. Because of the time limit that the Government placed on themselves, I understand that there was no time for a full-scale consultation with everybody who might be affected, but it is a pity that they did not listen more to the financial services sector before they set the ball rolling in the first place. In Scotland, and in the City of London, the financial services sector is clear. If they have to do Brexit, which they do not think is a good idea, we should stay in the single market, as that would immediately ease a lot of the concerns about the application of regulations post-Brexit.

Would any of the secondary legislation that the Minister has been or will be responsible for between now and 29 March have been necessary if the Government had listened to financial institutions and agreed to stay in the European single market? After all, that would have been perfectly compatible with the referendum decision of 2016.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Grant Excerpts

Tuesday 11th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Elizabeth Truss]

My hon. Friend is right. It is surprising that we have heard nothing from Labour Members about today’s fantastic employment figures and record wage growth—the highest we have seen for a decade. The reason is the policies that this Government have pursued. We have the second highest youth employment rate in the G7, and we have been one of the fastest improvers.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

Youth unemployment in the United Kingdom is sitting at about 3% below the equivalent figure for the rest of the European Union. The Chief Secretary puts that down to sound management of the UK economy. By a very similar margin, youth unemployment in Scotland is consistently lower than the equivalent figure for the rest of the United Kingdom. Surely that must mean that young people in Scotland have a better chance of gainful employment under a Scottish National party Government than they would if Ruth Davidson were First Minister.

[Elizabeth Truss]

I celebrate when the UK economy is doing well and I celebrate when the Scottish economy is doing well. I was recently in Scotland meeting the Scottish Finance Minister and talking about measures to improve growth. What I think will be interesting is to see, in tomorrow’s Scottish budget, whether the Scottish Government match the tax cuts that we have made across the rest of the UK—or will Scottish taxpayers end up paying more?

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Peter Grant Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Before I attempt to pick up on the shadow Chancellor’s final views on where we are going, rather than on where we are, I draw the House’s attention to a wider issue, which I think goes to a quite important set of facts that the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) was talking about in terms of Scotland’s export arrangements. When economic historians look back on this time in 100 years’ time, I suspect that they will view Brexit as small by comparison with what has happened with the entire global trade. In the last third of the century, we have seen a huge transformation in the wealth of the world off the back of free trade. About a quarter of the world’s population, or well over 1 billion people, have been raised out of absolute poverty—$2 a day or thereabouts—by free trade. It has been a magnificent story over about one third of a century.

In that time, this has had an impact on us, too. We have gone from having 60% of our trade with the European Union and 40% with the rest of the world 20 years ago to nearly the other way around—in a couple of years, 60% will be with the rest of the world and 40% will be with the European Union. I am loth to quote forecasts, given the bad name that they are being given at the minute, but the projection—not a forecast—is that that will continue.

To pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee East, if we take the top three markets for British goods, or UK goods, in the rest of the world versus Europe, the top European ones of Germany, France and the Netherlands are dwarfed by our sales to America, China or Australia—our top three in the rest of the world. I take his point that we have to look very carefully, as we did when I was in government, at the regional balance of some of these exports, but the aggregate picture is very clear. Our trading future is more in the rest of the world than it is in Europe. This has huge implications—massively underestimated by Treasury and Bank of England forecasts over and again—for the need to keep our freedom to do trade deals to maximise our ability to exploit that.

I am not going to spend very long on the actual proposal that the Government have put in front of us, because it seems to me very clear that it will not survive the end of this debate. Very quickly, the Attorney General’s advice tells us that the backstop would endure indefinitely and that it would tie us to the customs union with no escape. That has massive implications for what I just said. The deal would still leave us, whatever the Chancellor says, subject to the rule of the European Court of Justice, albeit by a back-door and concealed route. It would see Northern Ireland carved out of the United Kingdom and tied to the European Union single market and the customs union, and it gives away £39 billion in exchange for the vaguest of political promises on a future deal. Because of all that and because we would be locked in at the discretion of the European Union, it puts us in a formidably bad negotiating position for the future. In my view, other than the constitutional issues, that is the most serious practical aspect of what is proposed. I do not believe that it will survive, which means that the shadow Chancellor’s question, “What are the future options?” is the central question of the debate.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for giving way. I note his reluctance to believe in forecasts, but he has not always been reluctant to forecast. In fact, on 25 May 2016, a month before the referendum, he said:

“The first calling point of the UK’s negotiator immediately after Brexit will not be Brussels, it will be Berlin, to strike a deal”.

If my memory serves me right, he became that “UK’s negotiator immediately after Brexit”. Can he tell us how the striking of the deal in Berlin went and when will we see it? Is that what he has in his hand now, or has he lost it?

[Mr Davis]

People have to read more than one line of a speech. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman’s iPad is too small to carry more than one sentence. I also said that the critical part of the negotiation would not be the first two years, but the last three months, when France and Germany would determine the outcome. If the hon. Gentleman wants to quote me again, he should get it right next time.

Leaving the EU: Economic Analysis

Peter Grant Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

Yes is the answer. We have a bright future ahead of us. We have the opportunity, with this deal, to go out and do other deals around the world with other countries. The report makes specific reference, for example, to the United States, China, India and other important trading nations. We know that those parts of the world outside the European Union are growing far more strongly than countries within the bloc of the EU27, so I am optimistic about the future of my country.

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am not going to draw any conclusions, Mr Speaker, on your assessment of how big or beguiling any of my attributes might be, because they obviously have not been enough to catch your eye until now. I draw the Minister’s attention to footnote 42 of the analysis, which states:

“For the purposes of EU exit modelling, the UK is assumed to pursue successful trade negotiations with the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India…Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay…Uruguay”,

United Arab Emirates,

“Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain”.

In the real universe, in which none of those deals is fully in place by the end of the transition period, how much worse than the Government’s own grim forecasts will the economic impact of Brexit really be?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is questioning some of the assumptions within a very complicated model, and as he has identified, the assumptions include that free trade agreements will be entered into with a variety of other countries. It is incumbent on him, if that is an area of the model that he wishes to stress-test particularly forensically, to look further into it, to look at the work that I have already outlined to the House will be carried out independently on behalf of the Treasury Committee, to question Ministers on that specific issue as he sees fit and to proceed in that manner.

Draft Double Taxation Relief (Mauritius) Order 2018 Draft Doubt Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Cyprus) Order 2018

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 General Committees

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. I have spoken previously in similar Delegated Legislation Committees to assert my view that the purpose of all these agreements should be to ensure that people pay tax where they should pay tax, morally and on principle, so I support any agreement that provides an incentive for people to do the decent thing and that closes down as fast as possible any loophole or incentive that encourages people to create an imaginary existence somewhere simply to get a preferential rate of tax.

Therefore, what assurances can the Minister give that nothing in the legislation will unintentionally create incentives or opportunities for further tax dodges that HMRC will then have to legislate to try to close down? Can he give concrete examples of the kinds of practices he mentioned in his opening remarks that have developed against the interests of UK taxpayers? Can he give us an indication of how much money is involved in them? Are they a major problem, or is he simply trying to prevent the problem getting any bigger?

I was concerned by the comments of the hon. Member for Beckenham about the potential impact on people who have given a lot of years of valued and dedicated service to the United Kingdom—military or other service—and who may now feel that their retirement plans are being adversely affected because of decisions taken back home in the UK. Can the Minister give us an indication of how big the effect is likely to be on individuals? How many UK citizens are likely to be directly affected, and how badly? Who will be affected? Will it be people who can just about get by on the pension they have accumulated, or people who could buy and sell most hon. Members here and who some of us may not be too sympathetic towards if they were asked to pay a fair share of taxes?

If the Committee and the House approve this legislation, how will the tax status of those UK citizens living abroad compare with the tax affairs of their colleagues who have chosen to stay and live in the United Kingdom in their retirement? I understand that if someone has organised their entire retirement on one set of assumptions and those assumptions change, it is frustrating and upsetting, but I would not want the Government accidentally to create a position in which people who are retiring are given an incentive to go and live, and spend their retirement money, in somebody else’s economy rather than here. We should be looking for people who receive a pension that is funded by the UK taxpayer to pay the same tax on that, regardless of where they choose to live. We would certainly not want to give people an incentive to move overseas and spend their pension promoting somebody else’s economy. I hope the Minister will give us some assurance about that.

The explanatory memorandum for the order relating to Mauritius said that, in general, the draft legislation complies with the OECD framework. I am interested in why it says “in general”. Does that mean that it does not comply in some specific details, or was the person who wrote it just being careful and reluctant to give a 100% guarantee of compliance to anything? Is there anything in either instrument that does not comply with the recommended frameworks from organisations such as the OECD?

Draft Double Taxation Relief (Mauritius) Order 2018 Draft Double Taxation Relief and International Tax Enforcement (Cyprus) Order 2018

Peter Grant Excerpts

Monday 18th June 2018 General Committees

[Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate. I have spoken previously in similar Delegated Legislation Committees to assert my view that the purpose of all these agreements should be to ensure that people pay tax where they should pay tax, morally and on principle, so I support any agreement that provides an incentive for people to do the decent thing and that closes down as fast as possible any loophole or incentive that encourages people to create an imaginary existence somewhere simply to get a preferential rate of tax.

Therefore, what assurances can the Minister give that nothing in the legislation will unintentionally create incentives or opportunities for further tax dodges that HMRC will then have to legislate to try to close down? Can he give concrete examples of the kinds of practices he mentioned in his opening remarks that have developed against the interests of UK taxpayers? Can he give us an indication of how much money is involved in them? Are they a major problem, or is he simply trying to prevent the problem getting any bigger?

I was concerned by the comments of the hon. Member for Beckenham about the potential impact on people who have given a lot of years of valued and dedicated service to the United Kingdom—military or other service—and who may now feel that their retirement plans are being adversely affected because of decisions taken back home in the UK. Can the Minister give us an indication of how big the effect is likely to be on individuals? How many UK citizens are likely to be directly affected, and how badly? Who will be affected? Will it be people who can just about get by on the pension they have accumulated, or people who could buy and sell most hon. Members here and who some of us may not be too sympathetic towards if they were asked to pay a fair share of taxes?

If the Committee and the House approve this legislation, how will the tax status of those UK citizens living abroad compare with the tax affairs of their colleagues who have chosen to stay and live in the United Kingdom in their retirement? I understand that if someone has organised their entire retirement on one set of assumptions and those assumptions change, it is frustrating and upsetting, but I would not want the Government accidentally to create a position in which people who are retiring are given an incentive to go and live, and spend their retirement money, in somebody else’s economy rather than here. We should be looking for people who receive a pension that is funded by the UK taxpayer to pay the same tax on that, regardless of where they choose to live. We would certainly not want to give people an incentive to move overseas and spend their pension promoting somebody else’s economy. I hope the Minister will give us some assurance about that.

The explanatory memorandum for the order relating to Mauritius said that, in general, the draft legislation complies with the OECD framework. I am interested in why it says “in general”. Does that mean that it does not comply in some specific details, or was the person who wrote it just being careful and reluctant to give a 100% guarantee of compliance to anything? Is there anything in either instrument that does not comply with the recommended frameworks from organisations such as the OECD?