Budget Resolutions

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Kevin Hollinrake

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

In his statement, the Chancellor mentioned “not just higher GDP, but higher GDP per head.” There is just one slight snag: figures published today for GDP growth per capita from 2024 to 2027 are lower for every year than figures published only a year ago, so we are talking about not higher GDP per head, but lower GDP per head. I use that as an example; we hear the rhetoric and hyperbole of the Budget statement, but it rarely stands any scrutiny when one reads the Budget documentation. The Government can claim that they will meet both their fiscal targets at the end of a five-year rolling forecast period—indeed, every Government could say they will meet their targets at the end of a five-year rolling forecast period—but it is what happens in between those points that is important.

The Government told us a year ago that net debt would fall as a share of GDP in 2024-25, and that net borrowing would fall below 3% of GDP in 2025-26. However, by the autumn statement, only five months ago, we were told that debt would not fall until 2025-26, a year later—and they still forecast that the deficit would fall below 3% of GDP in the same year. We were also told in spring that GDP growth would exceed 2% in two of the next five years, and that productivity would sit between 1% and 1.3% every year across 2024 to 2027. By November, growth was not forecast to exceed 2% in any of the forecast years, and the productivity growth forecast was down for every single year. Today, the Chancellor announced that while the Government would still meet their primary debt target in 2025-26, the percentage of debt to GDP would be higher than it was only five months ago, so debt is not really falling; at best, it is stagnating. GDP growth would still not exceed 2% in any year to 2028, and that is important. That is another half-decade in which GDP growth will not even reach historical trend growth rates. That is absolutely shameful.

The figure for productivity per hour—a metric that the Government like—is lower cumulatively over today’s new forecast period than the figure was that they announced last November. The Chancellor said this was a Budget for growth, productivity and long-term investment, but debt is not really falling as a share of GDP. The deficit is not getting smaller—it is actually getting worse, compared with the forecast last year—and productivity growth, that perennial problem that we all recognise exists, is cumulatively lower over the entire forecast period than the Government announced last November.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that we have to increase growth? We all agree that we have to get all parts of the United Kingdom growing. If he looks at the figures from the Library, he will see that from 2011 to 2021, England grew cumulatively by 14.9%, Wales by 13.7%, and Scotland by 7.2%. Does he agree that the Scottish Government need to do more to stimulate growth in Scotland?

[Stewart Hosie]

I agree that we need growth across the piece. One of the tools to facilitate growth is tax credits, and I am sure the Minister recognises that tax credits are a function of corporation tax. If he is serious about encouraging growth in Scotland, the Government should devolve business taxation powers and power over the associated tax credits; we would then see how we got on.

Whatever was said at the start of the statement about growth and productivity, and despite the hyperbole, the big introduction and all the fanfare, this Budget delivers neither of those things, as evidenced by the numbers that the Government have published today.

Britain in the World

Debate between Stewart Hosie and Kevin Hollinrake

Monday 13th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

Indeed, but I think the hon. Gentleman understands the point I was making, which was that we do not want to find ourselves tied to ridiculous red lines and timetables when the objectives are the key thing.

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate on the Gracious Speech. As with every Queen’s Speech or programme for government, there are certain measures that one would welcome—not least, in the case of this Queen’s Speech, the announcement of increased tax credits for research and development. I say that because innovative economies are more productive economies, and when we come to combat the inevitable decline caused by Brexit, the more innovative and productive we can be, the better. A word of caution, however: research and development tax credits are a function of corporation tax, and not every innovative or innovating company, particularly the small ones, pays corporation tax. So if we can have a little imagination from the Treasury Bench about how we support innovation in smaller companies, that would be very welcome. I also welcome the announcement that measures will be developed to tackle hostile activity by foreign states, and I hope that that builds upon some of the excellent work already done in the private and public sectors, and essentially by the National Cyber Security Centre.

Although some of the measures to tackle climate change are very welcome, particularly coming from this Government, they are described as being “world leading” when they are nothing of the kind. The sad truth is that is a thin and poor programme for government. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) said when opposing the programme on the opening day of this debate, our party stands against this Government’s

“cruel, punishing policies and narrow, backward-gazing politics.”—[Official Report, 19 December 2019; Vol. 669, c. 51.]

I would go further than that. Some of the measures in the programme—such as an immigration Bill that will end in law the free movement of people—will further diminish the UK’s ability to attract the best and brightest, as well as much-needed labour in other sectors, and very much risks turning the UK into an insular, reduced and backward-looking place.

Before addressing the impact that ending free movement will have on the agriculture, hospitality and care sectors, the brain drain that the UK Government’s hostile environment is already causing, and the brutish logic of the Tory party—whose plans will reduce the ability of young Scots and, indeed, youngsters from throughout these islands, to live, love, work and study freely throughout Europe—we might want to consider the practical implications of trade and how those matters are related.

When Commission President von der Leyen said last week:

“Without the freedom of movement of people, you cannot have the free movement of capital, goods and services”,

the Government should have listened. At a time when we need to boost trade, we should be paying attention to the damage that will be done to capital markets, the City of London and the ability to export services, all of which depend on people being able to travel freely. Given the damage that Brexit will cause to UK global trade, the UK Government should be doing everything possible to remove every conceivable obstacle to protecting and enhancing the opportunities to maintain and grow trade of all sorts—free, fair trade, with a level playing field. Instead, in spite of the clearest of warnings, yet more obstacles are being erected, this time by ending in law the free movement of people, which will further weaken and diminish the UK’s ability to strike good trade deals to compensate for the losses and minimise the additional costs that Brexit will cause.

We should put a couple of numbers on this. Everybody knows that there are dozens of economic assessments of Brexit. With one exception, they are universally negative. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research provides an average assessment. We could lose perhaps 20% of total global UK trade with a bad Brexit, and that is where we are heading. If we cut a deal with all the main English-speaking economies and with all the BRICS countries—Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa—we might claw back 5% or 6%. It does not take a genius to work out that we will soon run out of large countries with which to cut deals to compensate for the losses, so adding additional obstacles strikes me as making no sense.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Forecasts do not say that we will lose trade. They simply say that the rate of growth of our trade will be slower. They do not say that there will be a reduction in trade.

[Stewart Hosie]

Many assessments—I am not going to go through them—say that there will be a reduction in trade. Indeed, some assessments, as I have just said, suggest a 20% loss of total global trade. That is extraordinary.

At least this programme for government suggests that there will be a trade Bill—which, of course, we should already have had—with which comes the opportunity to table amendments. Those amendments will seek to ensure full parliamentary oversight over trade deals and that our devolved nations’ Parliaments are consulted, and their consent sought, on trade deals where there is a direct impact on those countries. The amendments will also seek to ensure that, as the UK rushes headlong into any deal offered, vital public services such as the NHS are off the table, important geographical indicators are protected, and vital regional industries—national industries, in some cases—such as fishing are also protected. Many of us are old enough to remember the last time the Tories treated Scottish fishing as expendable and sold it out. We have no confidence that they will not repeat that mistake.

Those things—parliamentary scrutiny, collective working to seek real agreement with the devolved nations, and protecting the NHS and regionally important sectors—should be at the forefront of UK Ministers’ minds. I fear, however, that, at best, they will be dragged kicking and screaming to make modest concessions or, worse, that the legitimate concerns of people and industries across these islands will be ignored in a headlong dash for what may be a hideous Tory-Trump deal. When I was last in the USA last year, I was repeatedly warned that the UK will be expected to put everything on the table, while the US will be expected to put nothing on the table. When the Foreign Secretary said that a US-UK deal would be win-win, I was struck by his breathtaking naivety in saying something that stands up to no scrutiny whatsoever.