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.

RBS Global Restructuring Group and SMEs

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

This is clearly an important debate, as evidenced by the testimonies that many Members have from their constituencies about RBS GRG. But it goes far wider than that, because RBS was not alone in facing allegations of mis-selling, of treating companies badly at the height of the banking crisis and of poor redress since. I am sure that many Members will have had cases of Clydesdale’s tailored business loan mis-selling, where redress has not yet been made and constituents may have lost their homes, businesses and livelihoods as a result. It is also the case—this adds to our frustrations and those of our constituents—that some products were regulated and others were not and that some customers were deemed to be “sophisticated investors” while others were not. In short, there was an opaque regulatory environment that may have been sufficient in the good times, but most certainly was not when the money ran out and the banks were at their most stressed.

All the banks came under scrutiny, but much of the focus, understandably, was on RBS because it had such a large market share; because, by some measures, it was the largest bank in the world; and, not least, because of the allegations surrounding the treatment of businesses after they entered the bank’s GRG. I will not describe the genesis of the products that people bought, as the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) did that well. I simply say that, when businesses wished to extract themselves, sometimes their only way of escape was to pay substantial sums, larger than any capital ever borrowed, but as they were distressed themselves as the economy downturned, that was not possible, and so, in the case of RBS, they went to GRG. One would have thought, as many have said, that this was to help businesses to recover, but few did. To be fair, some of those businesses are likely to have failed anyway, while others were potentially viable, and referral to GRG may have caused some difficulties. But the key point is that some definitely experienced actions that were likely to have resulted in material financial distress.

One of the many reasons this was able to happen is that in some cases commercial lending was not regulated. To be fair to RBS, it did work with the FCA and it has implemented the complaints review. It also trained the team under Sir William Blackburne, who was honest in saying that outcomes were not being delivered quickly. However, all that remedial work, some of which was very good, is undermined by the swirling belief that refuses to go away that businesses referred to GRG were cash-poor but asset-rich, and artificial default events were engineered. In short, the businesses were asset-stripped.

These allegations are made all the more persuasive by the fact that, as we now know, GRG had a commercial objective and was part of “project dash for cash”; and by what we have seen since the Treasury Committee published the “Just Hit Budget!” memo and the memo from 2008-09.

I fully support the motion. I want to end because time is short. The memo from RBS GRG said that a customer should transfer to GRG if a significant deterioration in any aspect of their activity had happened, where a breach of covenant was likely but had not happened, or where they may miss a contractual payment to anyone. So even businesses that stuck to the terms of the RBS agreement could be referred to GRG. That was completely wrong.

Paradise Papers

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Monday 6th November 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, which I take to be directed at me, Mr Speaker. It is of course for the Labour party to account for any situation in which its headquarters may or may not be owned by an overseas trust.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

It may well be that sheltering from our tax authorities sums of money greater than the GDP of many countries is not illegal, but does the Minister agree that that is precisely the problem? Does he also agree that the Paradise papers revelations, and the massive sums involved, now offer no hiding place for those who would deny a public register of beneficial ownership of funds and trusts, as well as businesses?

This tax avoidance is a driver of global inequality that runs to the very top of business, politics, entertainment and the establishment, in many countries, but these papers also shine a light on the hidden ownership of large corporations by foreign state institutions and individuals. To allow the public, customers and small investors to know who is really behind the most trusted of brands, will the Government now throw their weight behind not just local but global transparency on the beneficial ownership of businesses through offshore trusts, funds, and other opaque devices?

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman will know that this Government have been at the forefront of clamping down on international tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance through the OECD’s base erosion and profit shifting project, which we have been in the vanguard of, and through the work on common reporting standards that we have been introducing among our Crown dependencies and overseas territories. He will find that we are no slouches when it comes to grappling with the items that he raises.

Finance Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 31st October 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman]

I am delighted to be in the Chamber to talk about the second of the three Finance Bills we will have this year. When the Chancellor stood up and said we would move to having fewer fiscal events a year, I am not sure that this is what he had in mind. I am particularly excited about the third one, which will be coming along soon, and I really hope that it takes account of Brexit because the Government’s Finance Bills have so far failed to do so. I hope we will have a Budget that takes account of the economic shock that will happen as a result of Brexit, puts in place the infrastructure spend that we particularly need and makes it clear that we should stay in the single market.

On our specific concerns about this Finance Bill— I saw you getting a bit edgy, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I will get on to it—I agree with Labour Front Benchers that there have been a number of missed opportunities, and we still have concerns. We have previously mentioned these concerns, but they bear repeating because this place is good like that.

The first issue is VAT on police and fire services. This Finance Bill should have taken the opportunity to remove the VAT paid by Scottish police and fire services. We have made this case time and again and we will continue to do so. I hope that the Chancellor will listen and make changes in the Budget. We would like the VAT that police and fire services have paid to be paid back, and we would like the VAT bill to be got rid of in the future. There is a precedent for doing so—other organisations do not have a VAT bill—and we will carry on making this case very strongly.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

My hon. Friend makes the interesting point that this is not simply about making a change for the future, but about repaying the money that has been overpaid for some years. Will she re-emphasise to the UK Government the message that we are not simply looking for such a change, but want paid back that which should never have been paid in the first place?

[Kirsty Blackman]

That is absolutely the case, and I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting this point. It is very important that the Government recognise that Scottish police and fire services never needed to pay this money and that they give us back the overpayments that have been made. Frontline police and fire services are losing out as a result of those organisations having to pay VAT.

I have a couple of other points specifically about the Bill. We have already raised the issues involving termination payments, which Labour Front Benchers did a very good job of highlighting. I am very concerned about the impact on vulnerable people and those who have lost their jobs and about the fact that this £430 million tax take for the Treasury means there is £430 million less for people who are made redundant.

I say again that I am pleased by the moves the Minister has made in relation to changing the implementation and phasing in of digital reporting. I appreciate his making it clear that tax measures put in place by the Treasury and implemented by HMRC are constantly under review. My concern is that even though it is said that these things are constantly under review—that is always said during the passage of Finance Bills—there is very little evidence of any reviews actually happening. Certainly, the majority of the reviews that do take place are not made public, so we cannot see the impact of those tax measures. I have done some digging and asked the Library about these matters, but as I say, very few of the reviews have been made public. It would therefore be good if the things the Minister has said will be under constant review were actually under constant review and if that could be shared with Members across the House and not just, for example, people working within HMRC.

I gather that the changes to elections for removing fields from petroleum revenue tax have widely been welcomed by the industry. In two successive Finance Bills, successive Chancellors have committed to changing the tax regime for decommissioning assets, so that it will be easier to transfer late-life assets to a new clearing in the market, which is very important in maximising the economic recovery of the North sea fields. I say again that Chancellors have promised that twice, yet action has not been forthcoming.

The Chancellor has said that the results of the review will be in the Budget. I do not want him to back away from the commitment that he has made. It is very important for the oil industry, not just in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland, but for the hundreds of thousands of people who are employed in the industry across the United Kingdom. It is very important that it does happen to maintain confidence in the industry. We have had a period in which things have not been great in the industry. Confidence is beginning to build again and this change would make a huge difference.

Something that we voted against in Committee and that we disagree with is the change to the dividend nil rate. It is being reduced from £5,000 to £2,000. The SNP has argued against that not only because it is the wrong way to go, but because it is being brought in too quickly. People who have set up a small business or become self-employed in the recent past may not know that this change will be coming in and hitting them very shortly, so they will not have built it into their business plan. I am concerned not that it will reduce entrepreneurship, but that it will affect people who have made finely balanced financial decisions about the future fairly soon. We raised those concerns in Committee. For me, this is the worst proposal in the Finance Bill—the one that I disagree with the most and that I would argue against the most strongly.

I have made the key point that the Bill ignores Brexit. I agree with those on the Labour Front Bench that the Bill ignores productivity. Every day, more statistics come out and more issues are raised about the lack of productivity growth in the UK and the ripples that that causes. The Conservatives keep saying how great it is that we have so many people in employment. The problem is that those people are not getting wage rises that even keep pace with inflation. People are getting poorer, even though they are working hard, sometimes in low-paid jobs, simply because wages are not keeping pace with inflation. That is a big concern for us.

When she came to office, the Prime Minister was very clear that she would try to do things for people who are just about managing. Over the past year or so, it has become clear that life for those people has been getting significantly worse. I would like this year’s Budget to take account of that, to take account of the fact that austerity has failed and to take account of the fact that people are poorer as a result of this Government’s policies and make moves to change that.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

Finance Bill

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Tuesday 12th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for those observations, which I am sure the House has duly noted.

Let me now deal with termination payments, an issue on which the Opposition divided the House last week. The current rules are unclear and complicated. Some payments are taxed as earnings, some are only taxed above £30,000, and others are completely exempt from tax and national insurance contributions. Although most employers use the current rules as intended, the present system allows some to ignore those rules and deliberately manipulate their payments to minimise their tax by exploiting the differential tax treatment. That is clearly not fair. The Bill makes the rules simpler and fairer by recommending that we exempt the first £30,000 of termination payments from tax, while tightening the rules in respect of what is rightly included within such payments.

In last week’s debate, some Members raised concerns that the Government would be taxing compensation that is paid to employees when it is proved that they have been discriminated against—for example, after an employment tribunal. I am happy to reassure them. All compensation awards caused by proven discrimination against someone in employment will remain completely exempt from tax. All that the Bill does in the way of change is close the obvious loophole that enables an employer to treat part of a termination payment, as opposed to a tribunal award, as an “injury to feelings” in order to benefit from the tax exemption. It is HMRC’s longstanding position that if an employee claims a tax exemption for injury, it must have actually impaired that employee’s ability to work, and the Bill simply reconfirms that position.

Members also raised concerns that the Government intended to reduce the tax-free amount from £30,000. The Bill makes no such provision. If there were ever any desire to reduce the tax-free amount, it would be subject to a statutory instrument and the affirmative procedure, so the House would have to expressly approve any such proposal.

We also need to ensure that the taxation of different ways of working is sustainable, so that we have the funds to invest in the public services on which we all rely. It is therefore important that this tax treatment is fair between different individuals. The Office for Budget Responsibility has highlighted the fiscal risks arising from the growing number of people working through companies. Such individuals can pay themselves in dividends, and, in so doing, can pay significantly less tax than employees and the self-employed, although in many cases their economic activities are broadly the same. Part of the reason for that difference is the entitlement to a £5,000 dividend allowance, which is available in addition to the income tax personal allowance that the Government introduced at £11,500 in April.

Reducing this allowance to £2,000 will help to reduce the differential in tax treatment and help remove some of the working distortions to which I have referred. It will also ensure that support for investors is more effectively targeted: a £2,000 dividend allowance will ensure that around 80% of general investors continue to receive dividend income tax-free. The less well-off will be protected, with those general investors who are affected having investment portfolios worth around £100,000 on average, putting them in the top 10% of wealthiest households in the country. So the Bill will make our tax system fairer in a number of ways.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The Financial Secretary uses the example of someone who works through a company, and compares that with a wealthy investor with a large portfolio. The concern many of us have is for the small businessperson—the owner-proprietor—with a start-up business earning a very modest wage who relies on the £5,000 tax-free dividend in order to make ends meet. What consideration has he given in that regard?

[Mel Stride]

There are other considerations that the hon. Gentleman should focus on when he looks at individuals setting up in business, and there are many successful entrepreneurs throughout our country. We are the party and Government who have reduced taxation on business. It used to be 28% under the last Government and we have brought it down now to 19% and it will be further reduced to 17% over time. So the hon. Gentleman should look at this in the round, and I persist in my point that we need to look at the different tax consequences of the different models—an individual going into business on their own, whether as a sole trader or partner, or in an incorporated structure—to make sure we do not have people effectively just using one model for no other reason than the tax advantages thereof.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The amount of onshore corporation tax that we took in the last financial year is close to £50 billion—50% more than in 2010. As we have brought taxes down, the tax revenue take has increased. We can draw only one corollary from all this: if the Labour party gets its way and starts to put those rates up again, some of that tax take might be damaged.

[Stewart Hosie]

The Minister just prayed in aid the new penalties for the enablers of tax avoidance, which I welcome. This Bill is riddled with retrospective legislation, which I hope he will say more about later, but will the Minister explain to the House why those new penalties do not kick in until after the Bill receives Royal Assent when there is retrospectivity all over the place in the rest of the legislation?

[Mel Stride]

I believe that that is due to an element of convention, but I am happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman after the debate. We have already clamped down on those who generate such schemes, and we are clearly clamping down on those who use and seek to benefit from them. The third thing is that we will now be actively clamping down on those who enable those schemes through their advice along the way, and they will face penalties of up to the entire amount that they have charged for their services. That is just another example of this Government’s determination to leave absolutely no stone unturned when it comes to clamping down on tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

It frankly does not matter what the inflation figures there were. What matters is that people here are feeling the squeeze, that people here are finding that things are more expensive, and that people here are finding that their wages have not gone up. That is the concern; that is what we are discussing here.

On the subject of investing, our programme for government in Scotland involves creating a national investment bank to support economic growth and to invest in business research and development. We hope to channel finance where it can do the most good. The Government here have the national productivity investment fund. We are still not entirely clear where all that money will be spent and how it will be spent, and I look forward to seeing what will happen. I hope that the UK Government can look at similar measures to the ones the Scottish Government are looking at in relation to the Scottish national investment bank, which will ensure that investment and economic growth are in the right places.

[Stewart Hosie]

Would it not be better for this Government, instead of allocating spending into the next Parliament, to spend that money now and invest in something like a national investment bank so that they and other bodies will have the ability to mitigate the damage a hard Brexit will cause?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I agree with my colleague. Given the uncertainty that businesses are facing and their concerns, now is the time to make those decisions and to try to raise the confidence of businesses. This is a real issue, and one that the Government have dodged.

When we debated the Ways and Means resolutions, I mentioned the proposals on museums and galleries, which are in clause 21. I raised the fact that the Value Added Tax (Refund of Tax to Museums and Galleries) (Amendment) Order 2017 has not, as far as I am aware, been laid yet. On 17 July, in response to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), the Government said that that would happen as soon as possible, but as far as I am aware the motion has not yet been tabled. If the Minister gets the chance later, I would very much appreciate it if he said when he does plan to lay the order, because that would be very useful for museums and galleries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)]

I am very grateful to be called to speak by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, particularly since we worked so well together in a previous incarnation. I am pleased to be speaking in this debate with you in the Chair.

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), who speaks for the SNP. She referred to the recent general election. I completely agree that while it did not go as well as we would have hoped, it did not go terribly well for her own party. I, for one, am very pleased to be joined on these Benches by a number of excellent Scottish Conservative colleagues. It might surprise her to know that I am equally pleased to be joined in this House by some Labour colleagues who are of a Unionist nature. The one very important thing that came out of the general election was that we strengthen the United Kingdom and the bonds that bring us together, whichever political party people are from, and weaken the forces of nationalism trying to break our country apart.

[Stewart Hosie]

Obviously this has very little to do with the Finance Bill, but for the sake of completeness, the right hon. Gentleman might want to remind the House that the Scottish National party won the election in Scotland with a majority, which is something that the Tories do not have. As for nationalism, I think he should perhaps look in the mirror and reflect on his British nationalism before he casts aspersions on anybody else.

[Mr Harper]

I was not casting aspersions. I was simply reminding everybody that the Scottish nationalists—that is what they are; they are a nationalist party—want to break up the United Kingdom, and I was simply congratulating my colleagues from Scottish constituencies on helping to strengthen our United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Braintree (James Cleverly), with whom I agree entirely on the support that small, digitally enabled microbusinesses need to compete with the large, global, mention-no-names fulfilment operations. I hope he is right that the Bill delivers the support that smaller businesses need.

It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden). It is appropriate that he made his maiden speech in such an important debate. Having known him for some years before he was elected, I very much hope and expect that he will use his undoubted talents to change Labour policy so that it no longer supports 70% of the Tories’ cuts and instead backs a genuine alternative to austerity. I am sure that in future debates he will be happy to intervene on me, as I will on him.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) that we cannot support the Finance Bill tonight as it is derived from the last Tory Budget. She made it clear that, as many will remember, the Budget confirmed austerity and, in our opinion, woefully failed to mitigate the likely impact of the hard Tory Brexit that now lies before us—a hard Tory Brexit that at its heart, as we have heard confirmed this week, also represents a power grab on Scottish powers and the powers of other devolved nations.

My hon. Friend is also right to raise the issues of prices rising faster than wages, the impact of the continuing public sector pay cap and, most shockingly, the 10-year real-terms fall in the incomes of people who actually work, which speaks volumes for the lack of priority the UK Government are giving to those who put in a shift, 9 to 5, five days a week or more. Those people are substantially less well off now than they were prior to the downturn.

Like all Finance Bills, this one contains particular measures that would be very welcome if they stood alone—I will say a little about some of those measures today—and some that are less welcome. I will mainly concentrate on inconsistencies in the commencement of certain measures, the absence of guidance from HMRC in certain circumstances and an apparent increase in the amount of retrospective legislation. Let me give some examples to demonstrate all those things.

The provision of tax relief for pensions advice in clause 3 is welcome, as is the mirroring provision in clause 4 of tax relief for other necessary legal advice. I, like the rest of the SNP, certainly welcome the extension of the existing reliefs in those areas, but I see from the explanatory notes that the commencement of both clauses is retrospective, being from 6 April 2017. I have no issue with that on those provisions, except that I am not sure retrospective legislation is a good thing in principle.

It is equally sensible, as part of the process of tax simplification, to make changes, in clause 6, to the process of PAYE settlement agreements. They will not have effect until next year, and I have no problem with that. The explanatory notes state that the new regime will be “a largely automated process” and, again, that is probably sensible, but the commencement date for that largely automated process does not fit well with the recent changes announced for the implementation of a fully digital tax system, which has been put back until 2019. Indeed, the explanatory notes for clause 62 state:

“Regulations providing for digital record keeping cannot come into force before 1 April 2019.”

I hope that the people who undertake to go digital quickly do not suddenly find that they fall foul of regulation and guidance issued the following year. Given that this measure is expected to be in place in six months’ time, will the Minister tell us whether the promised strengthened HMRC guidelines will be available to businesses? When will that happen?

As has been mentioned in earlier speeches, a deal of attention has been paid to clause 15, which deals with business investment relief, and, in particular, the ability of partnerships, previously excluded from BIR, to now be eligible if they carry out commercial trades in their own right. I just wonder what the scale of those commercial trades will have to be for an application to be able to be made for BIR. Will it be one, two or 10 trades? Will it be half of the turnover? A little clarity on that would be very helpful. The Minister might want to explain further why those changes have been proposed, given that I was not aware of any particular demand from partnerships to have BIR associated with them in the first place. The clause is also retrospective, having effect for investments made after April this year.

Clause 26, dealing with the elections in relation to assets appropriated to trading stock, applies for appropriations made since 8 March this year. Clause 38, dealing with the first-year allowance for expenditure on electric vehicle plug-in points, has been in effect since 23 November 2016. Clause 19, relating to losses and the counteraction of avoidance arrangements, applies to all losses on or after 1 April this year, whereas changes to reference property losses, in certain circumstances, came into effect on 13 July this year.

I have given a handful of examples, some to be welcomed and others the subject of debate, where we have in one Bill retrospective commencement dates of 23 November 2016, 8 March 2017, 6 April 2017 and 13 July 2017. That demonstrates the serious issue of the level of retrospective tax law in the UK. The Bill also contains future implementation dates for 2018-19, which is inconsistent with other measures the legislation is supposed to complement and support. That quick glance allows us to understand perfectly well the criticism that the tax code is not only too long but far, far too complex.

I alluded earlier to the fact that one measure is not being implemented retrospectively: clause 65 and schedule 16, dealing with penalties for enablers of defeated tax avoidance. Of all the measures that any reasonable person might have assumed could—indeed, should—have been made retrospective, surely it should be the penalties for those the legislation says design, market or facilitate abusive tax avoidance. But no: lo and behold, the new penalties will not come into effect until after the Bill receives Royal Assent. The Minister prayed in aid HMRC’s efforts to clamp down and raise more money by tackling tax avoidance and abusive tax evasion. I very much welcome that, so I find it odd that given the measures in the Bill that are subject to retrospectivity, the penalties for the enablers of defeated tax avoidance are not.

I wish to raise three other small matters. First, the explanatory notes for clause 62, on digital reporting and record keeping for VAT, say that for those who are unable to use digital tools because of, for example, their geographical location—I assume that that means the absence of sufficiently fast broadband—alternatives will be provided. Will the Government guarantee that that means we will keep the current manual system and that there will be no unnecessary change and complexity?

The second matter relates to the Government’s failure to explain what Brexit really means—other than Brexit, as the soundbite goes. Clause 21 and schedule 6 cover relief for the production of museum and gallery exhibitions, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss). The explanatory notes tell us that at least 25% of the qualifying expenditure must come from the European economic area. I know that the EEA is different from the EU, but as the UK withdraws from the EU will the Minister clarify whether, if all the qualifying expenditure is spent in the UK, that will apply as it would had it been spent elsewhere in the EEA?

Finally, I make no apologies for returning to clause 8 and the change to the income charged at the dividend nil rate, from £5,000 to £2,000 in 2018. To some extent this relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Braintree about small and microbusinesses, which start up and begin to just about make a profit, but from which the owner-proprietor earns barely the minimum wage, let alone the living wage, while their company grows. Many such people use that £5,000 tax-free dividend to make ends meet. I understood what the Minister said earlier about those who actually work for a third party but are nominally self-employed, and indeed about those with substantial share portfolios, for whom some extra tax-free money is simply a bonus, but surely to goodness the legislation can be drafted in such a way that it does not penalise or appear to act as a disincentive for those who wish to start a business, by taxing what might be the first modest dividend that that business might ever have had. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will look again and table some sensible amendments to ensure that the change captures the tax revenue from those from whom the Minister wants to see it captured but does not act as a disincentive to those who wish to start a business.

That was a gentle canter through some technical matters; I am happy to leave the broad-brush stuff to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North.