Budget Resolutions
Debate between George Kerevan and Stewart Hosie
Stewart Hosie
The right hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. I can say with absolute certainty that there was never, ever a threat of an immediate collapse. Indeed, I am on record as saying there would be no problem in week one, month one or year one, or even in year two or year three, which gets us to just beyond the negotiation. The danger was always the long-term risk of decreases in foreign direct investment and trade, and of loss of GDP from reduced migration, to which I shall turn because the Chancellor did not.
Much of the previous failure came about because the last Tory Government strangled the lifeblood from recovery by cutting too much or too quickly, with little or no regard to the consequences. That error was set in stone by the old fiscal charter and its requirement to run a permanent surplus quickly, almost irrespective of the economic conditions. The new fiscal charter, which was not really given a look-in today, is certainly more flexible than the last one, but it still targets a surplus early in the next Parliament. The numbers and the timescale look precarious. The forecasts for a current account surplus are tiny, not even reaching 1.5% of GDP in this Parliament. If there is any external shock or any capital flight, if we suffer more devaluation, which is quite likely, or if the negotiations go badly, the figures could fall apart very quickly indeed.
These numbers are being delivered before the full impact of a hard Tory Brexit are felt. We cannot even assess properly what the consequences of that will be, because the OBR tells us
“there is no meaningful basis for predicting the precise end-point of the negotiations as a basis for our forecast.”
That is a central assumption that pretends Brexit does not exist—a ridiculous thing to do with the invocation of article 50 looming.
The OBR’s central forecast is in rather stark contrast to what we already know. The Treasury had reported previously that the UK could lose up to £66 billion from a hard Brexit, and that GDP could fall by almost 10% if the UK reverted to WTO rules, which echoes what the Chair of the Treasury Committee said. Other assessments mirror that. The London School of Economics says:
“In the long run, reduced trade lowers productivity.”
That is a huge problem for the UK. It went on to say:
“That increases the cost of Brexit to a loss of between 6.5% and 9.5% of GDP.”
It puts a range of figures on that of between £4,500 and £6,500 per household.
Last year’s PricewaterhouseCoopers report suggested that employment could fall by 600,000. The figures for Scotland produced by the Fraser of Allander Institute suggest that a hard Tory Brexit could result in 80,000 lost Scottish jobs and a drop in wages averaging £2,000 in a decade. If we add to that the report by senior executives in the FTSE 500 saying that Brexit is already having a negative impact on business, and the British Chambers of Commerce reporting that half the businesses surveyed have already seen a hit to margins due to devaluation, we can see the scale of the problem. What we should have seen today is mitigation to match that.
To be fair to the Chancellor, he did move a little last autumn with announcements of additional support for capital investment and research and development. Today, he reiterated some of the R and D statements and put some flesh on the bone of other investment, no doubt taking his cue from the IMF, which had said previously that the Treasury had done enough to stabilise finances for the Government to embark on extra investment spending. However, the figures from last year’s autumn statement show public sector net investment falling in 2017-18 to 2018-19 and not recovering again until we are in the next Parliament. The figures today for public sector gross investment show them falling this coming year, 2017-18, to the forecast made only three and a half months ago. The money should be spent now to mitigate that rather than waiting for the OBR to say that the damage has been done.
However, it is not all about broken promises on debt, deficit and borrowing. It is not even about repeating the mistakes of the past on investment. We are now in such uncertain times that, to protect jobs and the current account, trade should be front and centre, but little was said about that today. The Red Book tells us already that the current account is in negative territory for the entire forecast period. The impact of net trade will be zero or a drag on GDP growth for almost every year in the forecast period. That is after an average 15% devaluation in sterling since the EU referendum.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
Is my hon. Friend aware that the Red Book also points out that, over the forecast period, the cumulative current account deficit is more than 13% of GDP? We will have to sell an awful lot of UK companies to fund that.
Stewart Hosie
That is precisely the point. The choices are that we grow and we take exports seriously, or we do what Tory Governments have always done, which is to sell off the family silver.
Growth is forecast to be based on heroic levels of business investment after the uncertainty of Brexit ends this year. It will be propped up by household consumption with a commensurate rise in household indebtedness, central Government investment, which I welcome, and fixed investment in private dwellings, but with house prices forecast to rise at two or three times the rise of inflation. The Budget report seems to make merit of that: people will feel wealthy, it says. We know what happens when prices fall, and we know what the impact is on youngsters trying to get on the property ladder. On household debt in particular, the Chancellor should have been much more aware of the concerns that, even after excluding mortgage payments, household debt has now reached record levels. This is not a balanced recovery.
However, it is the issue of trade that is most worrying. The figures are clear. The last full year for which we have figures—2015—saw a current account deficit of £80 billion, and a deficit in the trade in goods of £120 billion. At least the Chancellor did not repeat the claims of his predecessor that we could double exports by the end of this decade to £1 trillion. Perhaps he should enlighten the Secretary of State for International Trade, who still thinks that it is sensible to keep the target even though he does not believe that it can be met. This is not all the fault of this Chancellor. Many of these failings have been embedded in the UK economy for decades. It is not just about exports, but about support for innovation, which I welcome, and manufacturing as well as boosting productivity across the board.
We should have had specific plans today—the Chancellor has had enough time in office—for substantial GDP growth, not the less than 2% in every year for the forecast period, which is lower than the pre-crisis trend. We should have had measures to boost productivity. In Scotland, productivity is 4% higher than the 2007 level, compared with next to nothing in the UK. We should have had targeted support for high-growth export-focused small and medium-sized enterprises. The Chancellor should have taken more businesses out of business rates entirely in England rather than offering just a bit more help for a short period of time.
I welcome what the Chancellor said about education. If we tackle the attainment gap, we can get inclusive growth. We will not get inclusive growth if people are struggling to put food on the table because the welfare cap is squeezing people’s real incomes.
The Economy and Work
Debate between George Kerevan and Stewart Hosie(8 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stewart Hosie
We are using every single power available to us, and we will use all our powers over taxation when they come. How we choose to do that will be a matter for the Scottish Government. What I suspect we will not do is to impose a 5% increase on the poorest workers in Scotland, which was a plan posited by others and led them to come third in the election.
This Queen’s Speech could have been used for the delivery of vital and urgent aid to support trade and exports, and for measures to stimulate investment and growth to turn round what is now recognised in the real world as this Chancellor’s failed stewardship of the economy, which has seen the trade deficit widen to its worst level since the crisis in 2008 and will see the Treasury miss by £300 billion its own target of doubling exports to £1 trillion by the end of this decade.
We could and should have had a fair tax Bill, simplifying the UK tax system and delivering greater tax transparency; and, vitally, measures such as a moratorium on this Government’s programme of HMRC office closures. We should have had the establishment of an independent commission to simplify the tax code and strengthen tax transparency by guaranteeing that beneficial ownership of businesses and trusts—here, in the Crown dependencies and in the overseas territories—would be made fully public.
We should have had an energy security and investment Bill, facilitating an export-led sustainable energy sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) said, we should have had a comprehensive strategic review of tax rates and investment allowances in the North sea. In addition, we should have had a review of securing the future energy supply of the UK and an ending of the UK Government’s commitment to the failing Hinkley C nuclear project. We should have been directing investment instead into renewable energy and into carbon, capture and storage. Those, among other initiatives, would have formed the basis of solid economic proposals to grow the economy. What we ended up with in economic terms was a digital economy Bill, a criminal finances Bill and a better markets Bill. I shall deal briefly with those Bills.
We understand the benefit of digital connectivity and welcome the roll-out of superfast broadband, which has the potential to boost productivity. According to a Deloitte report commissioned by the Scottish Futures Trust last year, increased digitisation could boost the Scottish economy alone by around £13 billion. Increased digitisation and reach across Scotland would also have a direct impact on improving productivity, business creation, jobs, earnings, exports and tax revenues—and many more positive outcomes for public provision. The report suggested that if Scotland were to become a world leader, we could see a significant increase in GDP, something in the order of 6,000 extra small and home-based enterprises and potentially an extra 175,000 jobs by the end of the decade.
We therefore welcome moves by the UK Government to provide digital infrastructure, but we are unconvinced that this digital economy Bill will turn round the UK’s persistently poor productivity levels in the way that it might have done. We are particularly unconvinced about whether the implementation of this digital plan, particularly the broadband roll-out, will deliver—not least because we have evidence that the UK Government have failed in this regard before.
As long ago as July 2013 the National Audit Office reported on the Government’s then broadband programme, saying that broadband roll-out was 22 months late. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee reported last year that the UK’s target dates for broadband had been changed many times, raising concerns that the target for delivering superfast broadband to even 95% of the UK was in jeopardy—in other words, not very good with targets at all. We nevertheless welcome the UK Government’s commitment to introducing a universal service obligation, not least because it was in the SNP manifesto and we believe that if it can be fulfilled, it would bring particular benefits to rural communities.
We welcome, too, Government moves to tackle corruption, money laundering and tax evasion, but the criminal finances Bill does not go far enough to combat this systemic problem. Following the release of the Panama papers, my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) called on the Prime Minister to go further with measures to crack down on tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance, pointing out that illicit cross-border transfer financial flows are estimated at around £1 trillion a year, which is 10 times more than global foreign aid budgets combined. We believe that the Prime Minister and the Government should prioritise bilateral tax treaties, not least with places such as Panama and other tax havens, as part of the global efforts to co-ordinate better against tax avoidance.
Furthermore, we call on the UK Government to embolden compliance by guaranteeing that the beneficial ownership of companies and trusts is made fully public. It is also the case, as I alluded to earlier, that the UK has one of the most complicated tax codes in the world. That leads to a loss of tax yield and perpetuates opportunities to exploit loopholes. We have called on the Government to bring about a just tax system, which will assist in ensuring that all taxpayers are given a fair deal.
In our alternative Queen’s Speech, we call for the Treasury to convene a commission and report back within two years, following a comprehensive consultation on the simplification of the tax code. With a simplified—not a flat tax code—tax system, the Government could boost yield, encourage compliance, and avoid exploitative loopholes such as the Mayfair loophole. While we welcome the long-overdue measures by the UK Government to tackle corruption, money laundering and tax evasion, we wait with interest to see the detail of these measures.
Whatever good may come of this, however, the counterproductive decision to close 137 HMRC offices will strip local businesses and individuals throughout the United Kingdom of the support that they need to ensure that they comply with the law. If they are to tackle tax avoidance at all levels and continue to provide local support when it is needed, the UK Government must place a moratorium on HMRC office closures. We take the view that, by and large, individuals and business want to contribute to society by paying tax, and that a high proportion of the SME tax gap—caused not by fraud, but by genuine error and miscommunication—could be dealt with by removing the threat to local offices. It is extraordinary that, although tax compliance is now at the heart of much of our economic debate as it has not been for decades, the HMRC workforce have been cut by 20% since 2010.
The final Bill that comes under the broad heading of “the economy” is the better markets Bill, whose main purported benefits are to give consumers more power and choice through faster switching and more protection when things go wrong. That is welcome. The Bill would simplify the way in which economic regulators operate to make life more straightforward for business and cut red tape, and would also speed up the decisions of the Competition and Markets Authority for the benefit of businesses and consumers alike. That too is welcome.
The intention is to deliver a manifesto commitment to increase competition and consumer choice, particularly in the energy market. However, while we welcome Government moves to challenge rising energy prices by encouraging market choice, the Bill does not go far enough to combat the problem of fuel poverty at a structural level. According to the UK means of calculating fuel poverty, in 2014 some 2.5 million households were in fuel poverty. According to the methods used in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, over the last three or four years the figures have sat between 30% and 40%. The structural issue here is not a shortage of gas or electricity, it is not necessarily a shortage of competition, and it is not necessarily the ability to change suppliers quickly; it is a shortage of money to pay for the gas and electricity coming into the house.
I am sure that there are good intentions behind many of the economic measures in the Gracious Speech, but they are simply too little, too late.
George Kerevan (East Lothian) (SNP)
My hon. Friend has referred to fuel poverty. The Chancellor mentioned Martin Lewis. Is my hon. Friend aware that I was at a conference with Martin Lewis this week, at which he denounced universal credit as particularly hurting the poor and their ability to save and to pay for energy? The very person whom the Chancellor mentioned is the person who is actually—[Interruption.]
Finance Bill
Debate between George Kerevan and Stewart Hosie(9 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
George Kerevan
I know that is true from talking to the small businesses in my constituency.
The Chancellor claims to want a productivity revolution, but that is given the lie by the fact that in the autumn statement in December and the March Budget he did not announce that the £500,000 allowance would stay or that it would in fact be £200,000. Investment requires long-term confidence—telling businesses well in advance what they can do in terms of investment. The fact that the Chancellor did not tell us, but has produced a rabbit out of a hat in the summer Budget, tells me that he is not that serious.
We have also heard today that the Chancellor intends to cut corporation tax progressively over the spending period to 18%. I do not gainsay that, but I ask the House to look at what happens when cutting corporation tax significantly is combined with a de facto reduction in the annual investment allowance. Surely we want to cut corporation tax to encourage firms to use their surplus capital to invest in plant and machinery. It is therefore necessary to maintain the £500,000 level—or perhaps even raise it further—to encourage firms to put their money into plant and machinery to raise productivity. By de facto cutting the investment allowance from £500,000 to £200,000 at the same time as cutting corporation tax, the Chancellor will encourage firms to keep their surplus capital sitting in the bank, instead of investing in plant and machinery. That is what has been happening in this country, and that is one of the reasons why productivity has fallen since 2008.
Stewart Hosie
Is it not therefore all the more important —at a time when the banks are still not lending fully—to incentivise to the highest possible extent to encourage businesses to use their own resources for investment?
George Kerevan
I take my hon. Friend’s point. We need incentives that co-ordinate and integrate, not just a series of random measures that allow the Chancellor to make headlines here and there but do not have an impact on productivity in the longer term.
The surplus balances held by British companies total something in excess of £0.5 trillion, and some estimates put it at more than £1 trillion. A reasonable estimate is £0.5 trillion or £550 billion. How do we incentivise firms to take that money out of the bank and put it into plant and machinery and create jobs? The Chancellor is doing his best to provide incentives in another direction. Raising the inheritance allowance on property is another way of encouraging shareholders—when shares are bought back by companies—to put their money into existing bricks and mortar rather than invest in companies.
We have a Budget that claims to be about productivity, but provides none of the efficient incentives required to get plant and machinery that will create jobs. Let us look at what has happened to productivity since 2008. Initially, when the recession started, UK productivity fell. What normally happens in the first few years of a recession, as workers are shed and firms rely on using their existing plant and machinery more intensively, productivity rises. It rose in most of the advanced industrial countries in Europe in the two or three years after the recession, and in America. Thereafter, we would expect firms to start to invest in new innovation and developments, and productivity would rise not simply from the shedding of labour but from expansion, new product lines and new companies. That is what has happened in America, which had a significant increase in investment and innovation, and productivity has risen significantly in a long-range curve, as American companies have grabbed market share. In the UK, we saw a second downward bump in productivity in 2011. That came just as the Chancellor realised the mistake he had made in rushing for austerity between 2010-11. He had made massive cuts, but at that point he changed. We have had several long-term plans. In 2011, his new long-term plan was to turn on the monetary tap and crank up an artificial housing boom. Of course, that created even more incentives for individuals, financial companies and businesses to put money into trading in property, rather than in factories and manufacturing.
What we saw post-2011 was British productivity getting even worse, while the productivity of other industrial countries—in particular the United States, but also China—started to improve for the very best of reasons: they were investing in new plant machinery. We have not solved our productivity problem because we have not got the incentives right. I see nothing in the Budget to change that.