HMRC Impact Analysis: Customs

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I think the Minister is in denial. The cost is £15 billion—£7.5 billion from UK to EU trade, and a comparable amount from EU to UK trade, which will no doubt be paid by consumers and businesses here. This denial runs to the heart of this whole problem. The Prime Minister said that leaving the EU would save £1 billion a month. That clearly only adds up if we ignore and deny any costs such as the £15 billion that we are talking about today. But it is worse than that. This figure is an annual recurring cost, so how will it be mitigated?

The figures exclude additional one-off costs. How will they be mitigated and have they even been assessed? They ignore the new VAT rules on parcels that are damaging to small businesses. How will that be mitigated and has it actually been assessed? The £15 billion also excludes the serious damage done to exports of low-margin items where this cost burden may be significant. Has that been assessed? Finally, the figures ignore the multiple damages done to businesses that ship part-finished goods back and forward across borders many times, which multiplies the administrative burden. Has that been assessed? How many business will be damaged and what mitigation is being put in place?

[Jesse Norman]

As the House will know, a lot of mitigations have already been passed through statutory instruments, including instruments in relation to stream- lining customs import processes and procedures, special procedures for other areas, and deferment of import duty and VAT. Only yesterday, we passed a statutory instrument on safety and security declarations on our imports.

Mitigation very much depends on the shape of any deal. As the House will appreciate, the figures we are discussing today pertain to a worst-case scenario of a no-deal impact. There are many other areas in which the EU has already indicated that it is happy to give mitigations—for example, in relation to some of our haulage processes and people travelling by air into the European Union.

High Speed 2

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Before I call the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) to move her motion, eight Members have notified me that they intend to speak, and I suspect many more may wish to intervene. We only have an hour. I do not want to limit the key points that anyone wishes to make, but if we can have a little brevity, it would be greatly appreciated.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the business case for High Speed 2.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hosie, in my first debate as a Back Bencher in more than five years. I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss one of the biggest concerns for many of my constituents, and to outline why I believe that the business case for High Speed 2 must be urgently reviewed by the Government.

I first became aware of HS2 when it was proposed in 2009 by the then Labour Government. Investment in infrastructure, creating jobs and growth, improving travel times between our major cities, and closing the north-south divide were all put forward as reasons in favour of the UK’s second high-speed train line. However, those supposed benefits unravelled one by one, and it quickly became apparent that HS2 is not the right infrastructure project, will not improve point-to-point travel times, and will not close the north-south divide. It will create jobs, yes, but at an eye-wateringly expensive rate, far beyond what we might expect from a similar project.

Those of us who expressed concerns about HS2 even while it was still in consultation were dismissed by others as nimbys and told that we were flat wrong about the wider benefits that HS2 would bring to the north. I was then and continue to be willing to be proved wrong, but with the delay to the notice to proceed, growing concerns about the project’s spiralling costs, ongoing engineering and design difficulties and, even now, the rumours that the line past Birmingham might never be built, it is high time for the project to be thoroughly reviewed to ensure that it will actually deliver for taxpayers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

Order. I intend to start the summings-up at around 10 past, so the time for each speaker is obvious, if all three want to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liam Byrne]

I am all for that, so long as it does not introduce a moment of delay in driving this forward. Frankly, our economy cannot have any further delay.

I treasure a project that puts the west midlands at the centre of this economy. I particularly treasure the speed, which will result in a journey time of something like 65 minutes from Birmingham International to Canary Wharf, the most important business site in the country, via the connection at Old Oak Common.

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire advanced the traditional bang-for-buck argument, which is that if we got rid of HS2, there would be plenty of bucks left for other kinds of projects. I have to say that that is not fiscal realpolitik at all. The fiscal realpolitik will mean that money currently earmarked for HS2 will be quickly absorbed into other projects, and Opposition Members will be forgiven for worrying that it will disappear into the £10 billion-a-year tax cut proposed by the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson).

The right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire was right to demand choices, but the choices that she proposes are wrong. The real strategic transport choice that this country must confront is not between HS2 and other rail network lines, but between planes and trains. We should drive ahead with HS2 and cancel the ludicrous decision to build a third runway at Heathrow airport for £14 billion. We could use half that money to build a high-speed loop and take passengers from Heathrow to Birmingham, where there is already untapped capacity for 17 million passenger movements a year.

Around the world, a trillion-dollar high-speed rail revolution is under way, and we are being left behind. It is time that this country got on with it.

[Stewart Hosie (in the Chair)]

I call Victoria Prentis. Please be brief. Then I will call the Front-Bench spokespeople.

Clydesdale Bank and SMEs

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Given the personal cost of this—destroyed businesses, personal bankruptcy, mental health pressures, suicide and now a hunger strike—many of these people will not have the ability or the stomach for a historical review. Moving forward, may I tell the Minister that there is little confidence, including from the Treasury Committee, that the FOS has the ability, capacity or expertise to do the work it has been asked to do? I hope the Minister will listen—I am sure he will—to those in all parts of this House who are saying there is now an unanswerable argument for an independent financial services tribunal.

[John Glen]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I have responded to I think nine debates in this Chamber and in Westminster Hall on this matter. I am very aware of the pitch and the breadth of concern that exists on this matter and the urgency in getting some outcomes that actually deliver for our constituents, and I will continue to work towards that aim.

Balanced Budget Rule

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer, and to take part in this debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley) on securing this debate, not least because we all want the debt, deficit and borrowing to come down to sustainable levels—there is no disagreement about that objective. At the end of his speech, he spoke about flexibility and not harking back to the debates of 10 years ago. We supported the New Zealand model that allows for maximum flexibility for a shock, while trying to reduce the debt and deficit, and we still think it has considerable merit.

While not wishing to be at all partisan, I must take issue with the hon. Gentleman in one regard, which is that one generation’s spending paid for by the next is not a characteristic of much of our investment. Roads, rails, bridges, water, sewerage, long-term health improvement, education and even paying the state pension to those who have already contributed are intergenerational investments, and I would not characterise them as being a burden on, rather than an investment for, the next generation. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) spoke about morality, but there is nothing inherently immoral about borrowing if it is to fund that intergenerational investment.

I wish, rhetorically, to ask a series of questions. How do we do this? How do we run a balanced budget? What would the mechanism be? It strikes me that there are three ways that one could begin to do it. First, we could set hard targets, but if the downturn comes unexpectedly, if the revenue yield is lower than anticipated or if the money runs out, there are a number of options. We could simply stop spending, leaving a half-built bridge, road or railway, with unpaid pensions and cuts to welfare, but that would be socially, economically and politically undesirable. We could ignore the failure and carry on spending, or we could have a hybrid rule akin to the welfare cap, and the poor Minister would have to report to Parliament on why they going to make were cuts or ignore the rule and keep on spending.

In any event, there are likely to be in-year budget changes. In-year budget cuts in Westminster had an immediate impact and drove a coach and horses through the already set, voted on and agreed Scottish Parliament budget. If that is multiplied across the Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland, and every local authority and other public body, an in-year change has a sudden and profound cascading effect on every recipient of public cash in the country—again, that is politically, economically and socially damaging.

As we have seen, the setting of a hard budget creates a perverse disincentive to hoard cash. No politician has not struggled to get cash from one public body or another in June, July, August or September, but then found a huge splurge of cash towards the end of the financial year. I bet my bottom dollar that if money is spent in that way it results in—how can I put this gently?—not quite optimum value for money.

To get round that, we currently budget against future forecasts, but if GDP is lower—for whatever reason—or if the tax yield is lower, or if the public finances and fiscal numbers are not what they might be, we are left again with a number of options. We can stop spending, which is bad. We can have in-year changes, which are undesirable. We can also allow automatic stabilisers to take their course. That normally happens for a good reason, but the budget rule is then breached. We could introduce a corollary to the Bank of England failing to meet the inflation target, with some kind of letter or report to the House of Commons. If that happened too often, it would become rather meaningless; even worse, it could become a fiscal event in its own right. Watch how the markets would respond to that, rather than a sensible automatic implementation of the automatic stabilisers.

To avoid such difficulties—as the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire said, we have seen this in the past—we can have a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am long enough in the tooth to remember my friends in the British Labour party changing the start and end dates of the economic cycle to make the numbers fit. It was not very credible, so I would rule that out, however superficially appealing.

All those mechanisms—all of them—depend on accurate forecasts. If there is optimism bias, our fiscal numbers and tax yield will be lower than anticipated on day one. We have seen, year after year, and even with substantial depreciation of sterling, that the contribution of trade to GDP growth was far lower than expected, or even zero or negative.

Secondly, it requires those doing the forecast to have comprehensive access to all of the information. The Office for Budget Responsibility has told us that it did not have access to some Government policy changes before it produced its report in advance of the Budget, and even the most recent Red Books make precisely no consideration of the impact of Brexit on the fiscal numbers —zero—or of the impact of a reduction in immigration, which could have a profound impact on GDP growth and tax yield.

We then have the issue of having to identify in advance—although it is impossible to do so, particularly in the case of certain sorts of external shocks—the precise implications for the fiscal numbers and revenue yield of both cyclical and structural flaws in the economy.

I say to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire that we all want to see the debt come down, the deficit come down and borrowing come down—all of us want to see that. However, in addition we all want to maintain investment and to ensure that we do not punish those with least, who are dependent on public expenditure.

I also say to the hon. Gentleman, keep pushing. Let us see if we can get an answer from the Minister, and let us see if a flash of inspiration comes over all our heads at some point. If he can identify solutions to those problems—the optimism bias, the lack of information from the forecasters or to the forecasters, and information in advance about the precise impact of both a cyclical and a structural change to the economy—I suspect that I will be the first one to put him up for a Nobel prize for economics. However, in the absence of answers to those questions, I suspect that this issue will remain something that we will have to work at and something that is unlikely to be implemented, or at least implemented quickly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie]

Is the irony not that that model would look like Greece? It is running a current account surplus, but the pain of a decade of even more brutal austerity than was faced here will be felt for generations to come. That would be success according to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley).

[Peter Dowd]

The hon. Gentleman is spot on. I do not want to misquote the Secretary of State for Transport, but when East Coast went bottoms up he said that that just proved that the market works. That is the sort of economic approach that the Tories take to our country.

Let me go through the three criteria one by one. We are a party that, first, takes seriously the mantle of being guardians of a sustainable economy. We fully costed our election promises in our grey book, “Funding Britain’s Future”. The Conservative party, by contrast, gave no costings whatever in its manifesto. As the shadow Chancellor said, the only numbers in the Conservative party manifesto were the page numbers.

Meanwhile, Carl Emmerson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies said in his election briefing that Labour’s

“forward-looking target for current budget has much to commend it”.

The IFS also estimated that we would have met our deficit target with £21 billion to spare, and that we would meet our debt target.

Secondly, we recognise that Government spending is not something to be scared of, or to have a phobia about, and that some economic metrics do not fully capture the benefits of the gradual build-up of public assets, as the hon. Member for Dundee East mentioned. That is why we distinguish between day-to-day spend and investment in our fiscal credibility rule, because investment is a different kind of Government activity that contributes to a stock of public assets, providing benefits over time. A country is not a house, or an individual who has a lifetime; it goes on, as we know, for a long time. Comparing us to a household might be a soundbite, but it is economic fantasy.

[Peter Dowd]

I am not here to explain what sister parties anywhere do. I could quote sister parties for the Tories all over the place. The hon. Gentleman should be careful what he is wishing for when he starts to make those sorts of comparisons.

The Conservatives have been unable to appreciate this point in their words and in their actions: the Government’s fiscal target of cutting borrowing to less than 2% of GDP by 2021 does not exclude investment, or distinguish between spending and investment. In so doing, the Government overlook, and undervalue, the special character of investment. They do that time after time.

Their austerity programme, the mythical end date of which was in 2018—previously, it was before that—was more a signal of the Government’s failure than of any actual shift in approach. It has done lasting damage to our economy and society, and has left us with rough sleeping up by 169% since 2010, stagnant wage growth—the worst since Napoleonic times—and few examples of public infrastructure being patiently built up and supported.

The third aspect is flexibility when thinking about sound economic policy. The Tories’ austerity programme arises from, as the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire has reaffirmed today, a rigid ideological belief—not always reflected in practice, I have to say—that a smaller state is always better, notwithstanding good evidence of the state’s entrepreneurial capacity and the human costs of austerity. Such rigidity in approach is something that we have avoided in our fiscal credibility rule.

The zero bound knockout that we proposed, which would allow the Bank of England to change course in times of impending crisis when interest rates can do only so much, shows our willingness to adjust economic policy frameworks in the light of circumstances. Any sensible Government would do that—not bind themselves into a failed ideology and process. That knockout is informed by lessons learned after the global financial crisis—lessons that the Conservative party seems incapable of learning—when it became clear that continual cutting of interest rates was having little impact on spending habits and aggregate demand.

More was needed from fiscal policy, and that zero bound knockout—the fourth element of the fiscal credibility rule—acknowledges that that will sometimes be the case. Professor Simon Wren-Lewis writes that if that part of the rule

“had been in operation in 2010, we would have seen further stimulus in this and perhaps subsequent years, leading to a much quicker recovery from the GFC.”

Wren-Lewis describes that part of the rule—the part that allows a reversion to expansionary fiscal policy in times of crisis—as the part that makes the rule

“unique, and brings it up to date with current macroeconomic thinking.”

[Stewart Hosie]

Is it not part of the problem, although we are moving slightly away from a balanced budget, that there has not been a comparable fiscal response to the substantial monetary response that we have seen over the last decade?

[Peter Dowd]

That is a perfectly reasonable comment. Time and again the Conservative Governments whom we have had to endure—I choose to use the word “endure”—over the last nine years have failed to take a wider view on policy-making in the country. Petty in-fighting over Brexit has put us on a precipitous, catastrophic no-deal path. They failed, through austerity, to see, and to care about, how an ideological commitment to cutting apart Government would have ripple effects across the country on rough sleeping, indebtedness, demand and productivity, which is virtually the worst in Europe under this Government.

Our fiscal credibility rule, and economic policy in general, takes a wider view, which is important. We understand how fiscal and monetary policy have to interrelate for the economy to function well in different times, and we understand how principles of economic management such as our fiscal credibility rule have to fit into a broader vision of an economy that serves society, and not just those with the strongest voices.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Jenrick]

As we have already heard today, a great deal of progress has been made in that respect. Of course there is more to do, but we have to recognise the considerable progress that we have made. In 2010, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire said, we inherited a very severe situation: debt had nearly doubled in two years and was snowballing, while the deficit soared to a near record level—the highest in 50 years. Of course the financial crisis had contributed to that, but so had poor management of the public finances in the years leading up to it. We have made progress, and we are nearing a turning point in the public finances. Debt has begun its first sustained fall in a generation and the deficit has been reduced by four fifths—from 9.9% of GDP to 2% at the end of 2017-18. That is an important step forward, but there is a great deal more to do.

[Stewart Hosie]

Does the Minister not accept that his party has any responsibility for slowing down the recovery? Does he not recognise that in 2010 the UK was one of only two countries—the other was Argentina—to completely end the fiscal stimulus, weakening the recovery and ensuring that the downturn lasted far longer than it ought to have?

[Robert Jenrick]

No, I do not accept that for one minute. It is exactly as a result of this Government’s fiscal responsibility in that period that the public finances have now improved, credibility has been restored in the market and business has continued to invest. For those reasons and others, we now have continued record levels of employment, record low levels of unemployment and an economy that remains remarkably resilient. Let us not forget that public spending is £200 billion higher today than it was in the last year of the last Labour Government.

We are not complacent about the debt or the deficit. The fiscal outlook may be brighter, but the need for fiscal discipline continues, as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire made very clear. The debt is still more than 80% of GDP, which is equivalent to approximately £65,000 per household, and we want to reduce that figure, for a number of reasons. We are concerned to ensure that if there is a future economic shock, the economy is resilient, and we want to improve fiscal sustainability. In the most recent Budget, the Chancellor set aside £15 billion of headroom for economic shock, out of concern for any further uncertainty that might arise as a result of Brexit.

There is a broader point, however: servicing debt is costly. If our spending on debt interest were a Ministry, it would be the third largest, after health and education. Our spending merely on servicing our debt is equivalent to what we spend on the police and the armed forces. As my hon. Friend made clear, that has an opportunity cost, because that spending has no economic or social value and reduces our ability to spend on our priorities and keep personal and corporate taxes as competitive as possible. The debt burden of interest is merely being passed to future generations.

The foundations of the Government’s approach are our fiscal rules: first, to reduce the cyclically adjusted deficit to below 2% by 2020-21, and secondly to have debt fall as a percentage of GDP in the same year. Sticking to those rules will guide the UK towards a balanced budget by the middle of the next decade. The OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook, which was published in October and was quoted from earlier, shows that the Government are forecast to have met both our near-term fiscal targets in 2017-18, three years earlier than predicted. Sensibly, given uncertainties in the fiscal outlook, the Chancellor took the view that we should retain the £15 billion of headroom against the fiscal mandate in the target year and £73 billion against the target of getting debt to fall. The forecast also shows that borrowing will fall to 0.8% of GDP by 2023-24, its lowest level since 2001.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

May I say that I probably would not agree with the conclusion reached by the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames), but it was a pleasure to hear that speech?

I know that the Chancellor has had to go to a Cabinet committee meeting—I suspect there may be a number of those between now and next Tuesday—so I understand why he is not in his place. However, I would like to say that I agree with him in one particular regard—that to have no deal and to revert to WTO rules would be the worst possible outcome we could reach.

I would also say that I thought the Chancellor was incredibly sincere when he said that not to agree with the Prime Minister’s arrangements in this withdrawal deal would fracture society. I have absolutely no doubt of the sincerity with which he said that, but as a democrat, I say no less sincerely that, when the circumstances change and the actual consequences of what we may embark on become clear, we have a right to change our minds, whatever that means to any individual.

I wish to restrict my remarks mainly to issues of trade, investment and migration, as a reduction in trade and investment and a reduction in migration due to an ending of the free movement of people will be the main drivers of a reduction in GDP growth, productivity and living standards for citizens. Unless one views this as some kind of nationalistic project, surely to goodness our primary concern should be the economy, the changes to it, the impact on it and the impact on citizens.

On the decision to end free movement, as the Prime Minister says, “once and for all”, all of the Brexit scenarios modelled by the Treasury show GDP in 15 years’ time to be lower, and lower still when the impact of ending free movement is modelled. So it is time to stop pretending that ending free movement is a good thing. It is not: it is self-evidently economically damaging.

Intent on mitigating some of that, I read the withdrawal agreement in detail. The section in the political declaration on mobility states:

“The mobility arrangements will be based on non-discrimination”—

that is good, but

“free movement…will no longer apply”.

The parties will wish to negotiate short-term visits and visits for study, training and youth exchanges. They will consider social security issues. They will explore the possibility of facilitating the crossing of respective borders for legitimate travel; that means it will not exist on day one. They will allow travel under international family law, or for judicial co-operation in matrimonial matters, in matters of parental responsibility and the like. Paragraph 59 of the document states:

“These arrangements would be in addition to commitments on temporary entry and stay…referred to in Section III”.

Those are limited areas. I will come back to that in relation to agriculture, but I do not want anyone to think that this agreement will in effect allow travel as it currently exists; it simply will not.

All the serious pre-referendum assessments of the likely impact—every one—were negative. They were almost all in the minus 2% to minus 9% GDP range over the forecast periods they looked at. Even the OECD central estimate was a 5% loss of GDP over the forecast period. The subsequent analysis, the “Cross Whitehall Briefing”, suggested that GDP would be 1.5% lower in 15 years under an EEA-type scenario, 4.8% lower under a free trade agreement scenario and 7.7% lower under a mitigated WTO-type scenario. It is worth noting that even that final scenario was based on a smooth, orderly no-deal exit, not a disruptive, cliff-edge Brexit. It is, therefore, no surprise that the Bank of England Brexit analysis shows GDP growth lower, unemployment higher and inflation steeply upward the more disorderly the Brexit. Pre-referendum, the figures for Scotland on a WTO rules outcome suggested GDP down 5%, real wages down 7% and employment down by 80,000 jobs, or about 3%.

Since the withdrawal agreement has been published, there have been further assessments, which have been referenced today. The NIESR has suggested GDP growth will be reduced by £100 billion a year. The LSE has suggested that GDP will be lower—again, in the minus 2% to minus 9% range. The Scottish Government have demonstrated that, under an FTA agreement, Scottish GDP will be down by about £9 billion, which is the equivalent of £1,600 per person.

[Ms Dorries]

Does the hon. Gentleman have anything positive or hopeful that he could announce in his speech because this just sounds like “Continuity Project Fear”?

[Stewart Hosie]

This is actually the problem with this debate. There has been a series of almost universally identical assessments from dozens of different organisations, yet some people—I want to be careful about the tenor of this—have ignored all expert opinion. There has been the gut instinct reaction, “That’s what we’re going to deliver and”—by sheer force of will—“things will be better.”

[Mr David Davis]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

Hold on a moment.

I think it is important—this is why I have laid it out in this way today—to demonstrate that, from the start of the exercise, pre-referendum, between the referendum and the withdrawal agreement and since the withdrawal agreement, expert opinion tells us one thing. The hon. Lady is perfectly at liberty to disagree with that. She might come back in five, 10, 15 or 20 years and say, “I told you so. It wasn’t that bad.” But if we go in blindly to something as substantive and perhaps irrevocable as this and get it wrong, the public will never forgive us.

[Mr Davis]

The hon. Gentleman, quite rightly, makes the point that a number of expert economic opinions all say much the same thing, but of course that is exactly the same as was the case before the referendum. [Interruption.] Members may not like the facts, but I will repeat the facts to them. Exactly the same was true before the referendum. The Government’s forecast was in the middle of those expert opinions and the outcome was approximately £100 billion out in the first two years after the referendum. So there is a reason to say that the experts may be all talking within a hall of mirrors.

[Stewart Hosie]

I do not doubt that some of the assessments given for what might have happened to date, before we leave, were wrong. I was very clear from the outset of the referendum that nothing would happen. My personal view was that nothing would happen in the first couple of years. Indeed, even after we leave I do not think the impact will be immediate. But when we look at big foreign direct investment decisions on £1 billion investments to access a market of 500 million or access a market of 70 million, I suspect at that point we will begin to see some very substantial and negative consequences for the UK economy.

[Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)]

Does all this not prove that it stands to reason that the best possible relationship with the European Union must be membership? If the deal was going to be so beneficial for the UK economy, everybody else would want the same deal and the whole European Union project would implode. That is simply not possible and demonstrates that, no matter what people were voting for, they were not voting to become poorer.

[Stewart Hosie]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am not going to do it today, but certainly in previous debates we have gone through quote after quote after quote from Brexiteers who said that we would not be leaving the customs union, we would not be leaving the single market and we would still have the right to travel freely throughout Europe. Not everybody voted for a Brexit that was based on any single assessment damaging the economy, living standards and opportunities for their children and grandchildren.

The last of the assessments is the most recent, the Government’s assessment, which again shows a central forecast in all circumstances broadly in the minus 2% to minus 9% range. I find it extraordinary that the Government in essence have ignored every single serious assessment of the economic damage Brexit will do. What we see now with this proposal on the withdrawal agreement are rabbits caught in headlights, walking the economy towards danger, rather than pausing, thinking and changing course.

[Richard Graham]

I want to pick up on an earlier comment. The hon. Gentleman said that bringing to an end free movement would be very damaging. What would he say to my constituent, a young Gloucester girl, eight months’ pregnant and badly beaten up by her European boyfriend, who is terrified that when he comes out of prison he will return to haunt her and her family, because this country cannot deport European nationals unless they have served a sentence of longer than two years? Does he agree that there are some elements where actually it would be protective, not damaging?

[Stewart Hosie]

I am reluctant to get into an individual case. Suffice it to say we all have constituents. The same young lady may have been assaulted by a man from the same town who lives two streets away. Nationality and the ability to travel in that circumstance, however difficult, is actually irrelevant.

[Luke Graham (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend’s intervention, the hon. Gentleman was making a point about looking at economic futures and the Government facing facts where growth could be less than expected. Does he not see the irony of SNP Members making that point, when reports clearly state that Scotland, were it to be separated, would face 25 years of austerity? Keeping to his more consensual tone in the Chamber, I would just say that when he quotes GDP figures and minus or plus, addition or subtraction, could he be clear to the House, because I think it is very important for all those watching, that we are talking about growth being less than forecast? Growth will still happen, but it will be less rather than none at all.

[Stewart Hosie]

I have been absolutely clear that these figures are against the baseline. That is absolutely correct. These are figures where GDP is lower than would otherwise have been the case.

The language of the political declaration is about negotiating a future relationship. If we set aside the way in which that has been dressed up as some kind of exceptionalism that we are going to have the best deal ever, we are in essence talking about no more or no less than the vague intention to start to negotiate what the Government hope will be a preferential free trade agreement. However, the vulnerability of our economy to Brexit cannot be adequately mitigated through a UK-EU free trade agreement. That is, in essence, all we are talking about. For example, the EU FTA with Canada does include some limited provision for some degree of third country validation that is aligned with EU regulations, to facilitate the trade in goods, but it falls substantially short of securing access to the European single market that the UK or any European Economic Area member country currently enjoys. We argue that continued membership of the European single market and the customs union is vital to ensure that the UK economy continues to benefit from those current fundamental trading arrangements.

If memory serves, there was a previous assessment by NIESR that demonstrated that retaining single market membership could avoid a 60%—yes, 60%—decline in goods and services exports to the EEA by comparison with an arrangement based on WTO rules. I would also add at this point that the current arrangements do not simply facilitate trade with the EU directly. Membership of the EU has, for example, enabled Scotland to benefit from EU FTAs with more than 50 trading partners, so that by 2015 Scotland exported £3.6 billion to countries with which the EU has a free trade agreement. That trade accounted for 13% of Scotland’s international exports. In addition, although this is harder to quantify, many of the products exported from Scotland to the rest of the UK—this goes the other way as well—will form finished goods destined for the rest of the single market or countries with which the EU has an FTA. I will come back to that point, because it is important.

Of course, the rather non-exhaustive list of reasons why trade is likely to fall and drive down GDP growth, includes the increased cost of bureaucracy; uncertainty about the nature of customs arrangements; additional regulatory burdens; non-tariff barriers, which in some cases are the most significant; uncertainty about the legal basis upon which certain transactions may be carried out; and so on. Now, it is likely that some of those issue will be resolved—I have no doubt about that—but not all, not quickly and not without a cost to businesses and the economy.

If we look briefly at one or two of the ways in which the political agreement intends to take us forward, we can demonstrate how uncertain that is. On customs—this is in paragraph 27 of the political agreement—the UK has suggested a facilitated customs arrangement, or “facilitative” as it is described. But that is broadly similar to the maximum facilitation already described as fundamentally unworkable by the EU. On tariffs—this is in paragraph 23—what is said is fine in principle, but if we do not achieve that or if there is no deal, we are left with a situation where some people who support a harder Brexit are suggesting we set all our tariffs to zero and thus increase trade. However, were that to happen—this was confirmed yesterday in terms of the backstop—there is no guarantee that it would be reciprocated and it may well lead to the dumping of goods here from countries with massively lower labour costs, undermining business, jobs and prosperity here. Absolutely nothing is certain. In a sense, we are not taking a decision on an agreement; we are taking a decision on a wish list in a political statement, some or all of which may come to naught.

I have already gone through what is said in the political agreement about labour, and we are already seeing staff shortages, particularly in the rural economy. UK farms take in about 60,000 workers a year on a seasonal basis. The UK Government’s present proposal is for an evaluation scheme of 2,500 people. That does not cut the mustard. It may be that this matter is resolved in two or three years and that this issue is resolved quite successfully, but the damage will be done by then; the crops will have rotted in the fields.

I think that somebody said earlier, “This is all terribly bad news; it is all Project Fear—is there any reason for optimism?” Frankly, I do not think that there is. I do not believe that an FTA could adequately mitigate the damage that Brexit will cause. The Government’s own assessment says that an end to free movement plus an FTA would result in a decline of around 6.7% of GDP.

It was argued in the UK Government’s Global Britain strategy that we would offset a decline in trade with the EU from being outside the single market by exporting to more countries. However, fully replacing the value of EU trade will be challenging, as illustrated by the trade flows from the emerging BRICS economies—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa. I will use the Scottish figures to demonstrate that briefly. Those nations account for £2.1 billion, or 7%, of Scotland’s exports. By comparison, the EU accounts for £12.3 billion, or 43%, so even a small proportionate loss in trade, or lost growth in trade with the EU would require a dramatic increase in trade—over 30%—with those countries. We would all love to see that happen across the whole UK, but I suggest that that is highly unlikely.

If the UK signed agreements with the 10 biggest non-EEA countries, including the USA, China, and Canada—a process that could take many years—that would cover only 37% of Scotland’s current exports, compared with the 43% that goes to the EU. Some of the trade simply could not be substituted. If one is selling low-margin or perishable goods to the EU that are refrigerated in a wagon overnight, it simply cannot be substituted by shipping the same stuff to Australia, Japan or China. It simply does not work like that.

Finally on trade, it is also worth pointing out that despite the Government’s optimistic assumptions, even signing a substantial number of trade deals would result in an increase in trade of less than one quarter of 1% of GDP compared with the situation today—that was confirmed yesterday—if we successfully negotiate trade deals with the US, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Brunei, China, India, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Kuwait and Bahrain. That is an awful lot of risk for very little potential gain.

I want to talk about two other areas briefly. The first is foreign direct investment, now a key feature of the contemporary global economy and one from which the UK and Scotland derive considerable benefits. We have seen a substantial number of jobs in Scotland owned by EU companies that have invested here over the decades precisely to have access to the European market. There is no certainty that that would stay, and in the future much of it would go.

The second point that I wish to raise is productivity. The Bank of England assessment in the past week cites academic evidence that shows how tariffs may force the reallocation of

“production toward less efficient domestic producers, lowering aggregate productivity”—

So, even if there is substitution, as many argue, it is likely to lower aggregate productivity.

[Mr Baron]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

I will, one final time.

[Mr Baron]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s generosity. All the evidence shows that inward investment is about relative advantage. It is about lower corporation tax rates and flexible labour markets. It is about a skilled workforce and our universities. Tariffs of 3% to 5% are not as important as other factors, and I suggest that he look at the record inward investment that we have seen in this country since the referendum result, to prove that point.

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman is right in one regard: tariffs are important—in some areas, very important—but the non-tariff barriers, as I said earlier, may be more significant. We are already seeing skilled labour leave and not come back. We are already hearing that our universities, which he mentioned, are now worried because their academic working together with Europe is no longer there. The relative advantage of an English-speaking country with access to the EU market was there for all to see. Some people now wish to rip that up.

Every single Brexit model is bad. Investment is likely to fall, trade will most certainly be reduced, barriers will be erected, people will be poorer and productivity will be stifled. On that basis, we need to think, and think again—and quickly. As I see it today, and I will paraphrase the Prime Minister’s words from another constitutional debate: there is no positive case for Brexit, now is not the time for Brexit, and frankly, Brexit must be taken off the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Fox]

If I may, I will come to the hon. Lady’s contributions a little later.

This upward trajectory in employment shows no signs of slowing. Indeed, the OBR has calculated that we can add another 800,000 jobs without creating inflationary pressure, because there is still slack in the economy to do so. Throughout this debate, Labour has talked as though, post referendum, our economy is on its knees. Well, let me tell the Opposition that 2017 saw total UK exports rise by 10.9% compared with 2016, at a time when global trade grew by about 3.4%. British companies sold almost £50 billion-worth of mechanical machinery, £41 billion-worth of motor vehicles, £16 billion- worth of aircraft and £14 billion-worth of medical equipment. Since the referendum, we have increased our share of our GDP that we export from 28.3% to 30.5%, which is a very large increase by international comparisons—so much for Britain not making anything anymore. This is all before we even consider our world-leading services sector, which accounts for around 80% of UK economic output.

[Stewart Hosie]

The increase in exports is recognised. The nature of the exports is recognised. Why on earth do we want to put all that at risk by ending the ability to access those many countries with which the EU has an FTA that we are part of?

[Dr Fox]

If the hon. Gentleman is serious about automatically wanting to roll over all the agreements that the European Union has, I hope that he will vote for the Government’s motion next Tuesday, because that is exactly what would happen if we had a withdrawal agreement and a movement into the implementation period. All those agreements would automatically be safeguarded. He might want to think about that before he casts his vote.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

As a UK Government, we are always happy, and indeed keen, to work co-operatively with the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, as my hon. Friend suggests. Ultimately, however, these will be decisions for the Scottish Government to make. It will be for them to decide how to spend the revenues that will come through by way of additional funding via the Barnett formula. I can only suggest once again—I think this echoes my hon. Friend’s thoughts—that the best way forward is to keep taxes down and, in the case of Scotland, to have a country that is known for low taxation, rather than gaining a reputation for higher taxation.

Clauses 46 and 47 address the use of contrived arrangements that seek to avoid stamp duty on shares. The Government are aware that some corporate groups are transferring shares to connected companies for an artificially low consideration. The clauses create a targeted marketed value rule for transfers of listed shares to connected companies. This rule will prevent the use of artificially low consideration by charging stamp taxes on shares on the higher of the market value of, or the sum paid for, the shares transferred.

The Bill also re-emphasises our commitment to leading the way in implementing internationally agreed initiatives to combat tax avoidance. Clauses 19, 20 and 23 make changes to the UK’s rules on controlled foreign companies, hybrid mismatches and corporation tax exit charges to ensure that they comply with the EU’s anti-tax avoidance directive. The UK is a strong supporter of the objectives of the directive, as it will ensure that member states take a common approach to tackling tax avoidance. The UK’s rules are already comprehensive, and they already meet or exceed most of the requirements set out by the directive, but some limited changes are needed to ensure that we are fully compliant in all areas.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

On a point of clarity, the Minister has said that stamp duty on shares will be charged at either the market rate or the actual rate, whichever is higher. Will he confirm that shares will still be able to be sold below the market rate so long as the tax is paid on a marked market basis? Is that correct?

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 12th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. I know what a doughty supporter he is of the high street, and pubs in particular. We do of course, as a Government, support and have frequent conversations with organisations such as the British Beer and Pub Association. However, I would be very happy to meet him, as he requests, to have that discussion.

This Bill will provide additional relief from stamp duty for first-time buyers who enter into a shared ownership arrangement, and will back-date this relief to benefit those who entered into their purchase on or before the date of the Budget. We will continue to champion home ownership, as well as backing hard-working people and bearing down on the cost of living.

For every Member of this House, the high street lies right at the heart of the communities that we serve. High streets hold within them the very essence of the best of the human spirit—community, creativity, individuality and a collective purpose. They are the places we come together to work, to shop, to socialise, to support, to celebrate, and to invent and create, and this Government wish to see them thrive. That is why we have announced a two-year reduction in business rates of one third for smaller retailers, meaning that up to 90% of high street retailers will benefit. It is also why, in this Bill, we will legislate to allow for the further reduction of corporation tax from 19% to 17% in 2020, helping businesses both large and small. As tax rates have declined—as we have discussed—the corporation tax yield has increased by 50% since 2010. Backing our high streets means backing Britain, and this Government will play their part in this great endeavour.

This Bill will support businesses through the introduction of key allowances and enhancements to important tax reliefs. The structures and buildings allowance will provide a vital tax break for those businesses investing in new commercial property. The annual investment allowance will be increased from £200,000 to £1 million for the next two years, ensuring that companies have a critical additional incentive to invest.

For businesses concerned with deep-sea oil extraction, we will allow for the transfer of their historical tax history, ensuring that jobs, expertise and businesses involved in the North sea are preserved—a measure that the shadow Treasury Minister, the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), described as “corporate welfare” and said should be voted down. That position should be evidence enough that Labour has truly given up on Scotland, something that the Conservative and Unionist party will never do. On the Opposition Benches we have Labour Members who have given up on hard-working people, SNP Members who have given up on our precious Union, and Liberal Democrat Members who have just given up.

This Bill is also about fairness. It introduces a number of important measures that will further clamp down on tax avoidance and evasion. The House will know that this Government have an outstanding record with regard to the collection of tax. We have one of the lowest tax gaps in the world—far lower than was the case under Labour. In fact, the additional revenue raised by having our tax gap at its current level, compared with that in 2005-06 under the last Labour Government, is enough to pay for every policeman and policewoman in England and Wales.

Collecting tax also matters because where taxation goes uncollected, others who do the right thing are required to pay still more, our vital public services go without, or we have to increase borrowing and the burden is passed on to our children. Tax avoiders, whether the largest corporates or the wealthiest best-advised individuals, diminish us all. This Government will continue to clamp down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. Specifically, this Bill brings in measures further to address corporate profit fragmentation, whereby companies reduce their tax burden by artificially shifting around their revenues. In the Bill, we will ensure that non-residents pay tax on the capital gains they make on UK commercial property. The Bill also strengthens our diverted profits tax, which has already brought in and protected £700 million since 2015.

This House will know that we have announced a digital services tax, so that large multinational businesses such as search engines, social media platforms and online marketplaces pay their fair share in tax—right here in the United Kingdom.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I want to ask the Minister a technical question. Given that the digital companies’ turnover and, indeed, profits are substantial, why have the Government been so modest in seeking to achieve only a £400 million tax take from those companies?

[Mel Stride]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the scope of this tax is very clearly targeted on businesses that make substantial value in the United Kingdom as a consequence of the interaction of UK users and the digital platforms they trade across. He will know that there is a small number—relative to the size of the UK economy—of important businesses that are therefore within the scope of the measure. A figure of 2% is very much in line with the kind of figures that the EU was looking at or is continuing to look at—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) is talking about 3%, but she is not actually comparing like with like, because different revenues would be in scope under the two different approaches. The short answer is that this has to be proportionate: it is about levelling the playing field. Along with this particular measure, we have also announced that, for our high streets, we will be reducing business rates by a full one third for 90% of smaller retailers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Philip Hammond]

Yes. The Treasury regularly receives independent assessments that tell us that taxes cost us more than they deliver to us, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the Treasury always does its own modelling to reach its decisions.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Chancellor is aware of the sad news about the Michelin plant in my constituency; its potential closure in 2020 would mean the loss of 850 jobs. It is early days, but may I ask the Chancellor for a straightforward commitment to work constructively with the Scottish Government and others—who are meeting representatives of the business today—to do whatever he can to preserve quality manufacturing on the site, and to protect and preserve as many jobs as possible?

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Of course we will work constructively with the Scottish Government to ensure that we can mitigate in every way possible the impact on the community of these very large numbers of job losses.

Customs and Borders

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Thursday 26th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

I completely agree; I think that that is immensely important. It brings me back to what I said about our sense of responsibility. It is no good our pretending to be in a parallel universe when all the things that we might want to be true simply are not. We must face up to the world as it is, and to our responsibility and the consequences of any decisions that we make in the House for a process to build peace that has been going on for so many years. We are only the custodians of that process, and we must not be the ones who put it in jeopardy.

Another crucial point is that even if all that technology were possible—even if it were possible to solve all those problems at the border—it would not remove the need for rules of origin checks if we were not party to the common external tariff. It would not remove the bureaucratic burdens that would be imposed on manufacturing businesses every time they changed ingredients or components, because those ingredients and components will be subject to different external tariffs if we are outside a customs union, and the businesses will then have to account for their origins. That is why even new technology, however fabulous and whizzy it becomes in the years ahead, cannot solve the wider problem of what will happen if we have no customs union.

The second argument advanced by those who object to the customs union is that being outside will be worth it, because the benefits of not having a common external tariff and being able to have our own new trade agreements are somehow better than the benefits of being in the customs union. The problem is that the evidence—the Government’s own EU exit analysis, and the findings of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research—shows that the potential benefits of new trade treaties with far-flung countries, even if they could be created quickly, will still be outweighed by the losses resulting from the rules of origin checks and the friction at the border.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

When members of the Treasury Committee were in the United States, we were told one thing consistently by almost everyone we spoke to, namely that when it came to negotiating the new, alternative free trade agreements in which those in favour of Brexit put all their stock, the UK would have to put everything on the table and the US would have to put nothing on the table. Does that not lie at the heart of this issue? Our position will be substantially weakened, and nothing that the United Kingdom can negotiate will compensate for the losses that it is likely to suffer.

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Other Members will have more evidence and experience than I when it comes to all the detailed arguments, but if we are a smaller market offering to trade, we will be in a weaker position to get a good deal than if we are part of a larger argument in that trade negotiation. Trade deals can take a long time, regardless of the best intentions. There can also be winners and losers, which means that even in this country it may take us a long time to agree on whether new trade agreements are right or wrong.

For example, consumers might want to enjoy more and cheaper New Zealand lamb, but Welsh farmers might take a different view. Industry might be able to get cheaper Chinese steel, but what about the consequences for the British steel industry? If the price of a US trade deal is lower environmental standards or giving US private healthcare companies access to, and the right to aggressively compete for, contracts in our NHS, many of us will want nothing at all to do with that. The truth is that any trade agreement will be complicated to agree in this place, never mind with countries across the world.

Moreover, as the CBI has pointed out, we can increase our international trade—and our EU trade—while still in a customs union with the EU and without having to spend years negotiating complex new treaties. As the CBI points out, Germany currently sells four times as much as we do to China. We should be trying to make the most of those opportunities.

Research by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research shows that the overall trade increase from possible future agreements with the USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand would amount to less than 3% of our current trade. Are we really going to rip up all the benefits of what we have in a customs union for the sake of a 3% increase that will not be sufficient to balance what we will lose?

Digital Taxation

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Westminster Hall

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Cheryl, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Harborough (Neil O'Brien) on securing this genuinely important debate. I agree with much of what he said at the start of his contribution, particularly about tax base erosion. That is why I welcome what the Government have said previously about the focus being on economic activity rather than simply profit. We must begin to tackle the rather vexed and long-standing issue of profit shifting.

However, I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman’s interim solution would work. In essence it would be a turnover tax, and although there might be some superficial merit in that, it could potentially be damaging for high-volume, low-margin businesses. It would also, I suspect, immediately increase the risk viewed by those who provide capital for large digital start-ups—perhaps those with a large turnover and a business plan that will not see profit for some time. One can see how the funders of capital for such start-ups might be tempted to put their money into similar businesses located elsewhere.

[Chris Philp]

Google and Facebook can be described as many things, but “low-margin” is not one of them. I suggested a threshold of £100 million for UK sales or €750 million for EU-wide sales—such businesses are certainly not the start-ups referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

[Stewart Hosie]

Indeed they are not, but I was referring specifically to an increased risk for start-ups that perhaps have a similar model. That is important if we are to tackle the monopoly argument that was raised earlier.

This debate is not only about taxing digital companies; it is also about the UK Government policy of making tax digital. The SNP fully supports the principles behind that and the move to a phased introduction of digital reporting, not least because we called for it previously. However, we have concerns about the implications that digital reporting might have for small businesses with limited connectivity or in rural areas. We are also concerned about the closure of HMRC offices in Scotland and the rest of the UK, because that will limit the Revenue’s ability to provide the help and guidance that small businesses and individuals need.

Let me briefly take those three issues in turn. Following the consultation, on 13 July the Minister outlined the new timetable, which we welcomed, and said that only businesses with a turnover above the VAT threshold would have to keep digital records, and only for VAT purposes. That will happen in 2019, and businesses will not be asked to keep digital records or to update the Revenue quarterly for other taxes until at least 2020. We welcome those measures, but they will still require businesses to face challenges. Those challenges include changes to record keeping, because businesses will no longer be able to rely solely on manual records. There will also be changes to VAT returns, which must be submitted through the functional compatible software and not the normal HMRC portal, and all that is supposed to take place at around the same time as the UK leaves the EU. We all know that in a period of flux when there are changes to systems, there is more opportunity for fraud. What action will be taken so that we are observant and ensure that people do not try to fiddle the system at a time of a number of simultaneous changes, which include leaving the EU and the introduction of the online digital report?

As I said, the SNP is concerned about the effect that digital reporting could have on small businesses with limited connectivity or in rural areas. In particular, we are concerned about the impact on small businesses with limited technology for connectivity—or those that do not make much use of the internet—if they have to report online. Such measures will also affect smallish businesses in rural areas, where connectivity may not be as good as is required. I know there is a fall-back position, which I welcome, but will the Minister confirm that if digital capacity is not there, the fall-back position will be the current manual system, and that we will not create a new manual system to replicate the online system as it goes live?

The closure of HMRC offices could limit the Revenue’s ability to help businesses and individuals. That is important because as we know, a large part of the tax gap is due to error by both those paying and the Revenue. With the introduction of a new system, combined with the closure of local tax offices, may we have an assurance that there will be a good degree of forbearance for anything identified as an honest mistake during that period? I am also aware, as other hon. Members will be, of how specific local knowledge has uncovered fraudulent activity that would have gone undiscovered in a more general, generic system. Will the Minister confirm what checks and balances will be introduced with the new digital reporting, particularly on VAT, to ensure that some of the rather more obvious scams that we all know and have seen are detected, and the fraudsters punished?

My final point is slightly tangential, but it is important: we must not let technology drive the policy. If the digital tax roll-out is a huge success, one can see the temptation for the Government to say that we should lower the VAT threshold—after all, it is only a change to a number in the computer system. However, if the VAT threshold is lowered—it was rumoured that that would happen at the last Budget—businesses that turn over £60,000, £70,000 or £80,000, and make a good living for someone, or even two livings, will suddenly have to take 20% off their bottom line because their raw costs are low and they can claim little back. If the digital tax roll-out works, the Minister must not allow that to drive the policy and drive down the VAT threshold. I believe that would be a mistake, because it would crush entrepreneurialism and start-ups if people thought that with that additional VAT burden, it would be a struggle to make even one living out of a business that turns over £60,000 or £70,000.