Spring Statement

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

There is nothing progressive, nothing Labour, about not supporting people who are disabled or sick or who are young to do jobs that are commensurate with what they are able to do. One in eight young people has been effectively written off by the Conservative party, and we are not willing to leave them in that position. We are consulting in the Green Paper on an additional premium to pay to the most sick and disabled people, because we recognise that they need support from the state, but too many people are not given the opportunities to fulfil their potential, and we are not willing to carry on like that. In the Budget last year, we got rid of the non-dom tax status, increased capital gains tax, introduced VAT on private schools and changed the rules on inheritance tax, so I do not recognise what my hon. Friend says.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The Chancellor tells us that the world has changed. If that is true and it allows her to stick the boot into disabled people, it must also be true to allow her to review her income tax rates, perhaps making them commensurate with those in Scotland, which saw the Scottish economy grow in January by 0.3%, while the UK economy contracted by 0.1%. She could also choose to revise the Government’s position on re-accessing the European Union single market, which would allow a £30 billion recurring return with no compensation required. She could impose a 1% tax on assets over £10 million— a wealth tax, as the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) has just highlighted—which would allow a £40 billion recurring return every year with no need for compensation. If she has the disabled, the WASPI women, pensioners and hospices in her cross hairs, why can she not tap up multi-millionaires for a few quid?

[Rachel Reeves]

The world has changed, and we can see that all around us, which is why our defence is more important than other things. That is why it is so astonishing that the SNP continues to oppose the nuclear deterrent.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Roger Gale]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I naively assumed that, having already been called twice today, I had to take my place in the pecking order.

I want to come back briefly to hospices. This is a very serious issue, and I do not think that the Minister or the Government understand the deleterious effect of the change on care for some of the sickest people in the land, both in adult hospices and children’s hospices. I have listened very carefully—twice now—to the Minister’s response about giving this and giving that, but they are giving with one hand and taking away more with the other. The net result will be a reduction in staff. This is a straightforward tax on jobs.

Without dedicated, caring staff, who do jobs that frankly most of us would not begin to know how to do, the health service will not function. There are children living in and being serviced by Demelza House, Shooting Star and all the other children’s hospices. The Pilgrims Hospices in Thanet and Canterbury will not be able to afford to recruit and or pay the staff that they need.

Hospice care is an integral part of the health service. The point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and others that hospice care is part of the health service and should be treated as part of the NHS. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend asks from a sedentary position, “Where are all the Labour Members?” The answer is that they will be in the Lobby, voting against these measures, but they are not here listening to the debate. It saddens me to have to say it, but in this instance, their absence speaks volumes. Quite simply, they do not care.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The Lords amendments seek to address a clear, present and insurmountable financial challenge for significant elements of health and social care delivery in all our communities. The Government say, in the most spurious and disingenuous way, as though they did not understand their role in the health service, that social care providers, GPs, dentists and pharmacies are contractors. How they are dealt with by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is irrelevant. It is the role that they fulfil in our society and in the delivery of health and social care services that is at stake. These are not contractors that can go and develop new markets somewhere else. Their market is exclusively within the NHS and health and social care up and down these islands. Many properly commercial businesses will not manage to pivot their way out of this attack from Labour—and GP practices, pharmacies, care providers, nurseries and hospices certainly will not.

I want to mention hospices. When Macmillan Cancer Support speaks, no matter what colour our rosette, we should listen. It has highlighted clearly what the measures mean for end-of-life care. There have been 15 years of chaos in the United Kingdom, most of it economic; there has been the lost decade of Brexit, and its catastrophic effect on the UK’s economy and the material welfare of people up and down these islands. I ask: who can we blame? Who is culpable? Who has their fingerprints all over it? Not terminally ill children in hospices, who will, as a result of the Bill, suffer as a result of the debilitating effect on the care with which they are provided. The Minister and his Government could do a simple thing: give hospices a derogation from the grasping hand of the Bill, and protect children in the worst imaginable circumstances.

From the outset, the Government’s fiscal misadventure has been met with opprobrium from all manner of sections of the economy and society, but they have held firm. I pay tribute to the Minister; he fronts up here every time with a smile, and does his best to defend what he has to. That is his job, and I do not judge him for that, but the bottom line is that the Government have yielded, not to children in hospitals, or to people trying to deliver social care and free up hospital beds by preventing delayed discharge, but to the bankers by restoring their bonuses, and to the non-doms who want all the benefits of living in this country but do not want to pay for it. That speaks volumes about what a Labour Government in this day and age are all about.

[Sammy Wilson]

I hope that I can have this intervention without a musical interlude. I apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for having my phone switched on. Will the hon. Member accept that not only are services likely to be affected, as he has outlined, but the Government’s aim of raising additional revenue will be affected as well? As he pointed out, they have given in to the bankers and non-doms because of the fear of losing revenue. Anecdotally, we know that many businesses, whether those supporting the national health service or other small businesses, will cut back on the number of staff that they employ because they cannot afford them, and that will lead to a loss of national insurance and tax contributions. It could be an own goal for the Government if they cause pain to businesses but do not get any revenue from it.

[Dave Doogan]

I agree entirely. This is a £24 billion fiscal drag that is intended to create growth. Work that one out if you can, because it is beyond my ken. The Government will not make derogations for key elements of health and social care, because the benefit of the £24 billion drag on the economy that the right hon. Gentleman pointed out is, after compensation, already down £10 billion. If they compensate the people who they definitely should, such as GPs, pharmacies, care providers and hospices, that would take it down to somewhere around £7 billion or £8 billion. What type of Chancellor and Treasury orthodoxy says, “We place a £24 billion burden on the economy in exchange for an £8 billion return for the Treasury”? It is absolutely catastrophic. It is misadventure writ large, and it has Labour as its logo.

[Daisy Cooper]

The hon. Member highlighted the comments by the Office for Budget Responsibility, which said that the £24 billion is, in fact, only £10 billion once behaviour change is accounted for. If the Government were to agree to the exemption that we seek, the figure could be only £8 billion. Does he agree that there are much fairer ways of raising that revenue, such as by putting a digital services tax on the big online media giants and gaming companies?

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Member raises two excellent examples of what could be done to raise the funding that the Government need in a just way. Let us not forget that Labour knew fine what it was walking into when it won the election. We told it, as did the Liberal Democrats and the media—the Tories were a bit quiet on the issue, right enough—that there would be an £18 billion black hole if it stuck to Tory tax and spending policy. This is on Labour. The hon. Member mentioned two examples of excellent and just ways to raise funding.

Similarly, the Government could apply Scottish income tax thresholds to the whole of the UK, giving most people a pay rise and raising £16 billion into the bargain. They could raise £40 billion from a 1% wealth tax on assets over £10 million. There are a range of other measures that they could take, such as raising £30 billion by rejoining the single market—not very many people in here talk about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gregory Stafford]

You do not need any convincing of this, Madam Deputy Speaker, but were you to, the Lords amendments demonstrate why we need a House of Lords. They are the ones standing up and delivering the amendments that this Government are trying to wriggle out of this afternoon. Amendments 1B and 5B, which the Government are trying to derogate from, are essential for our care services. The financial strain that the Government’s national insurance contributions will put on the care sector is astronomical—some predictions are of around £2.4 billion on social care alone. Ultimately, that will lead to reductions in services and, unfortunately, closures, especially in the hospice sector.

The Minister has repeated what he and other Ministers have said on many occasions: they are giving a certain amount of money to the hospice sector, but as Opposition colleagues have stated, that is capital spending. What they desperately need is revenue spending to cover the cost of the rise in national insurance contributions.

[Dave Doogan]

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the Government patently do not understand whole-system cost, which is a key element of fiscal policy? When care providers—whether hospices, in-home care providers or social providers—fall over as a result of these measures, as they will, those costs will get picked up by the rest of the system, and that will have a net cost to the Treasury.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies]

I remind the House that inflation has already gone from 2% to 3% under this Labour Government, and in fact, the OBR scored the Hallowe’en Budget as inflationary. The hon. Gentleman is right that when these tax rises hit, they will be passed on through higher prices. I hope that that will not put pressure on inflation, but it will inevitably do so.

The combination of factors and how they are affecting businesses, including cafés, is not always appreciated either. The national living wage is going up. Conservative Members have welcomed that—we implemented the national living wage—but it is about the context in which it is going up: national insurance is on the rise and business rates relief for hospitality businesses and high street businesses is being reduced from 70% to 40%. All those things are compounding the impact on cafés, such as the one in the constituency of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin). They will be devastated, inevitably leading to job freezes or job losses, which I will come to.

From healthcare to charities and small and medium-sized enterprises, I have made the consequences of this Bill clear since it began its stages in the House. Today, the Government have one more chance to change course, because what many people across the country want to know is this. What is this Bill for? We were told that it was a one-off tax rise to fix the foundations of the economy. We were told that there would be no more tax rises after this, yet we find ourselves just a week away from an emergency Budget, with speculation rife that other taxes may have to rise because the Chancellor will not meet her own new fiscal rules. Some are suggesting that Labour will break another pre-election promise and not unfreeze the income tax thresholds in 2028, but will rather extend the freeze to pay down their new debts. That surely cannot be true—the Minister himself gave me his personal assurance in this House that income tax thresholds would be unfrozen from 2028. I would like him to reconfirm that promise to me today, in order to end the speculation.

This is vital context for Members as we consider the amendments before us today. If more tax rises will be needed—if the original justification for this Bill is now void—why should we stomach the Bill’s terrible consequences? Why should Labour MPs have to go out and defend this to their constituents? Why should we allow the Government to punish the sectors that the amendments before us seek to protect? In fact, why must we stand here and see this entire Bill implemented at all?

One impact that hits every sector of our economy is the impact on jobs. Just yesterday, we heard Labour talk about the importance of lifting people out of welfare and getting them back into work, and it is right to do that. As Conservatives, we know that the dignity of work and the security of a regular pay cheque is what lifts us up as a country and lifts families out of poverty. The tragedy is that this Bill has caused so much concern and so much uncertainty that employment is already declining in anticipation of its passing. The Office for Budget Responsibility tells us that the Bill will depress workforce participation for years to come.

Put simply, this Government are cutting welfare to boost employment, while at the same time boosting taxes, which will cut jobs. No wonder business confidence has completely and utterly nose-dived. It is inexplicable and entirely avoidable.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The shadow Minister says it is inexplicable, and I agree that on the face of it, it is. However, is one possible explanation for fiscal misadventure on this scale not that the Government Benches are filled with people who have scarcely any understanding of the real economy, much less what it means to try to start, run and sustain a business?

[Gareth Davies]

That is right, and it is an important point, because the decisions made by this Government are having such a profound impact on people in the real economy. I simply say to the British public that if they are unhappy with the decisions being made, they have to change the people making them. [Interruption.] Unbelievably, I am getting heckled on that point. The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) should get out and talk to the average businessperson in her constituency. She might quieten down significantly.

The Minister implied that the Government had no choice, and he still seeks to ask me what the Conservatives would do differently. Others on the Government Benches are trying that, implying that there is no other alternative. The Minister should look at the £70 billion of wasteful spending commitments that I have already listed, including the quangos, such as GB Energy, the pay-offs to the unions without any reform or productivity gains, and the billions of pounds being surrendered as part of the surrender deal to Mauritius. We have growth on the decline and inflation, debt and unemployment on the rise. We have a Chancellor on the brink, and confidence crumbling. We may not be able to kill this Bill, but we have our chance now to dent the damage. I urge Ministers and Members across the House to do the right thing and to support these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)]

I am on record previously as calling for more support for hospices, but I have been contacted by a number of constituents about the issue of home-to-school transport for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. That relates to Lords amendments 3, 6, 11 and 15, and I wish to consider those today.

For many children with SEND, their school transport is a lifeline to education, friendships and independence. Without it, these children risk being cut off, left behind and denied opportunities that they deserve. If these Lords amendments are rejected, local councils and transport providers will struggle, families will face uncertainty and, I believe, the fundamental right to education will be compromised. This is not just a technical change to national insurance rates and thresholds; it is a direct threat to the futures of vulnerable children and their families. These dry words on a page have a massive impact in the world outside this place.

There is a genuine fear that the cost of removing these Lords amendments, which will ultimately see more children kept out of school, will actually be greater than the additional revenue raised through the national insurance changes. In reality, to exempt SEND school transport from the national insurance rise is not going to bankrupt the UK. We know that local councils, even with additional funding, are already struggling with the impact of 14 years of austerity. I believe that we could certainly raise the money we need if we had a wealth tax and introduced other changes to capital gains tax. I would appreciate it if the Minister explained why we are unable to compromise on this issue and find a way to exempt SEND school transport from the changes he proposes.

[Dave Doogan]

It is almost three months to the day since we were here in this Chamber on Third Reading. The SNP and other parties warned at that stage of the very real, dire consequences for organisations, businesses, charities, hospices and so on. It certainly does not give me, or anybody else on the Opposition side of the House, any pleasure that those threats have come to pass. There is no pleasure in that whatsoever.

The British Chambers of Commerce spoke last month of a “powder keg of costs” for businesses, with 82% of firms surveyed saying that they faced the potential of staff lay-offs, wage freezes or cancelled promotions in the workforce, which will be a terrible drag on the economy. Last month saw vacancies in the UK contract at the second-fastest rate in nearly five years, while wage growth has slumped to an almost four-year low. If we want the evidence of what business thinks of this change, it is there in the figures: 300,000 small business owners surveyed last month said they intend to lay off employees in order to cope with Labour’s national insurance increase.

The economic impact is now becoming absolutely clear. Last week’s GDP figures show the UK economy shrinking in January. On Monday this week, the OECD downgraded the UK growth forecast for both this year and the next. The reality under Labour is that economic growth has fallen in four of the past seven months. The national insurance grab represents an extraordinary and unforced error in fiscal policy. If Labour genuinely has confidence in this move, then it should have no issue whatsoever in agreeing to Lords amendment 21 and publishing an impact assessment of its national insurance increase. What the Minister detailed as an impact assessment was in fact an analysis. An impact assessment deals not with the numbers, but with output in the real economy—the effect on business. The Minister knows fine that that is not what he is talking about.

On GPs and Lords amendments 1, 4, 5, 9 and 13, the Scottish Government will be investing—or compensating, rather—£13.6 million in general practice this financial year to support GPs in Scotland alone, obviously, to retain and recruit staff in the face of the change. But Scotland’s GPs, any more than England’s, Wales’s or Northern Ireland’s, should not be paying the price for UK Government decisions. Labour’s decision to increase national insurance contributions is a catastrophe for GP practices and for charities across Scotland—the relevant Lords amendments are 2, 7, 12 and 16.

There are 7,000 charities in Scotland at risk from this Labour Government. Marie Curie faces a £2.9 million inflation to its costs, with £75 million across the charitable sector in Scotland. The Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals alone is exposed to a £400,000 recurring pressure from this Labour Government. Scotland’s public sector faces a £700 million recurring pressure, which, with the Government’s compensation, still leaves a £200 million shortfall. Scotland is again being punished for choosing to invest more in its public services and paying people who deliver those services better.

The Government regularly attack us by saying, “What would you do?” I will tell them what I would do: £30 billion by rejoining the single market; £16 billion by introducing Scottish income tax rates; and £43 billion from a wealth tax of 1% on assets over £10 million. But this Labour Government will not go after multimillionaires. They would far rather go after the disabled, hospices, family businesses, GPs, farmers, councils and charities. That is what these so-called socialists are intent on doing.

In conclusion, Labour’s fiscal bonfire is what my colleagues in the Scottish Government have had to deal with to try to ameliorate and protect communities from Labour’s economic ineptitude. But even fiscally incompetent Unionists—a cadre in whose number I include the Minister—must realise that the Scottish Parliament cannot exist simply to ameliorate and protect Scottish public services from the United Kingdom’s decisions. Devolution can only ever be a temporary face-lift for the crumbling foundations of Unionism. As the Union crumbles, I shed no tears, but I wish it was not ripping the economic heart out of Scotland on its way down.

[Wendy Morton]

I would like to start with a gentle reminder, if it is needed, that Labour promised in its manifesto not to raise national insurance. Yet we are here today because Labour broke that promise. We are here today because right hon. and hon. Members in the other place tabled some very important amendments to the Bill, which are, rightly, now here for us to consider. Let us also not forget that Labour colleagues voted against protecting small family businesses; against protecting hospices; against protecting GPs; against protecting care providers; against protecting small charities, including air ambulances; against protecting providers of school transport for children with SEND; and against protecting nurseries. Now they all face the jobs tax.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister gives a very good answer to a non-question.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

We can listen to the braying of Labour MPs from Scotland or we can look at the fact that the Scottish economy grew 12% more than the UK economy in 2024. That is because of the SNP Scottish Government’s forensic focus on making Scotland the most attractive place in the UK for foreign direct investment year after year, having a progressive taxation system, rewarding our public sector workers properly and investing in our communities. What difference does the Minister think agricultural property relief and business property relief will have on the Scottish economy—positive or negative?

[Darren Jones]

Of course, when we make changes to taxes, even when that it is difficult, that results in additional funding for the hon. Member and his colleagues to spend. I am sure he is grateful that we have given a record-breaking increase in investment to the Scottish Government.

[Dave Doogan]

I’m grateful for nothing!

[Darren Jones]

He may be grateful for nothing, and he may be agitating in his place. I suggest that he goes back to the people of Scotland and explains his party’s record in government.

Finance Bill

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nesil Caliskan]

The Government’s commitment on investment, whether through the wealth fund or the private sector combination of GB Energy, brings stability to the sector in the long term. The truth is there is an energy crisis that affects my constituents and people across the country. At this moment, efforts have to be taken to ensure that we do everything we can to bring down the prices people experience in their bills on a day-to-day-basis.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Nesil Caliskan]

I will make some progress and conclude in a moment.

Politics is full of choices. The Government have to balance the books and take a decision to ensure that we close the black hole, so the choices they have made feel like the fairest ones. A long-term commitment to ensuring that we have stability in the energy markets, while ensuring that people who need help right now can benefit, is the correct approach.

I am happy to support the Government’s position on the Bill. It is a Bill that sets out the right choices, as I have said, and it is the first important step to ensure that the country is back on the road to recovery after a dark period, where people were impacted not just through an economic crash, but in their day-to-day living through a cost of living crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

It is for those parents and children that I urge the Government, at this last hour, to find a loophole for small faith schools and schools that focus on international pupils whose parents work here and know that their child needs smaller and more focused classes. For those children, I sincerely urge a rethink. The Minister could move the threshold to large schools, if that is what he is aiming for, or come up with a system that gives small faith schools a chance to survive. The Government must leave small schools and faith schools to educate children with a world view that has a nod towards parental values and moral concerns.

[Dave Doogan]

I will crack on with new clause 2, as it relates to the Government’s catastrophic management of the fiscal regime for Scotland’s oil and gas. In December, Norway’s sovereign wealth fund touched €1.7 trillion, but Scotland is no wealthier now in real terms than we were when North sea oil and gas was discovered in the 1970s. More than £400 billion has flowed from Scottish waters to the Treasury over the years, with very little coming back the other way. Rather than reverse that trend, the Labour party has chosen to accelerate it with an increase in the energy profits levy. The windfall tax was supposed to apply to the extraordinarily high profits from the high global oil price that preceded its introduction, but that level has long since gone. Through its changes to the EPL, the Labour party jeopardises investment and, in doing so, the future of our skilled offshore energy workforce and our ability to hit net zero.

Analysis from Offshore Energies UK shows that the increase to and extension of the EPL risk costing the economy £13 billion, which will in turn cost up to 35,000 jobs. The analysis also shows a reduction in viable capital investment offshore from £14.1 billion to £2.3 billion in the period 2025 to 2029 as a result of the changes that the Government are planning in the EPL. That loss of economic value impacts not only on the core sector itself but on the domestic onshore supply companies, many of which are in my constituency, and many of which will have a role to play in the just transition. That reflects a political choice by the Labour party to deprioritise investment in the decarbonisation agenda. Rather than allow a more valuable decarbonisation relief as the solitary positive by-product of its tax hike, Labour has ensured that there can be absolutely no silver lining to this policy cloud.

The simple truth is that the UK cannot meet the net zero targets or create green growth if the Labour party’s policies hack away at both investment and the domestic workforce that we need to deliver the energy transition. It is clear that the Labour party is abandoning Scotland’s existing energy sector, and putting at risk the just transition in the process. With those changes to the EPL, Labour will have created a worst-of-all-worlds scenario whereby it starves industry of investment, sacrifices the jobs that we need to deliver net zero, puts at risk our energy security, will not bring down energy bills, and harms the economy of Scotland, while failing to invest the money required to truly deliver the benefits that we all need to see from the just transition.

[Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman think that there is a real challenge in terms of the policies that the Government are encouraging? A much quicker retreat from the North sea will bring forward the decommissioning costs, which have not been taken into account by the Treasury and will add billions and billions of pounds in extra costs to the UK taxpayer.

[Dave Doogan]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct: wherever we look, the fiscal ambitions of the Labour Government on North sea oil and gas, or energy more generally, seem to be counterproductive. They are introducing a policy that anybody with a passing understanding of the industry realises will have precisely the opposite result of its stated aim, but the Government will not listen, much to my regret.

Analysis from OEUK shows that the oil and gas sector’s total tax yield will peak in 2026 under Labour’s increase in the EPL before declining, compared with the previous scenario, in which Treasury receipts continued to increase over the period. The analysis shows that while the expected tax take from UK oil and gas producers would increase in the very short term, ultimately it will result in a £12 billion net loss to tax receipts compared with the current regime. If the Labour party does not care about the jobs that the policy will cost, the harm it will do to the just transition or the damage to the economy of Scotland, surely Labour can accept that a tax increase that actually reduces the amount of tax received is, at best, counterproductive. That is why the SNP will support new clause 2 if it is pressed to a Division.

The SNP appreciates the many and varied reasons why parents choose to use private schools, but it is not fair or sustainable to treat private school fees differently from other discretionary spend for the purposes of VAT. The VAT exemption offered to private schools costs the UK taxpayer £1.6 billion annually—money that could be invested in other public services. However, the SNP also understands that for many parents whose children are enrolled in private schools the UK Government’s decision to remove that exemption will be extremely worrying.

The Scottish Government have sought to ensure that the distinctive nature of the Scottish education system is understood by the UK Government in this transition. In particular, the Scottish Government have raised concerns with the UK Government about the decision to include grant-aided special schools in the policy. In Scots law, they are not considered independent schools. In Scotland, there is a clear distinction in educational law between grant-aided special schools and independent schools, and the UK Government’s policy regrettably does not reflect that. I know the Minister studiously avoids almost everything that I say, but I hope that he heard that, and I would be very grateful if he could address it when he sums up.

On Scotch whisky, when the last Tory Government hiked whisky duty, the tax revenue raised from the industry fell by £300 million. That should have been a salutary lesson to any Government who came afterwards. The sensible option for both supporting Scotch whisky and Treasury receipts would have been to cut whisky duty. Instead, the Labour party is raising it again. On top of that, we now have a UK Government plan to grant a different definition of a single malt to English producers than that of Scottish single malts. The definition is entirely inconsistent with the global reputation of the quality of single malts, and seeks to tear up a well-established dictionary definition of a single malt while pulling the rug from underneath Scotch whisky producers. The Government must listen to warnings from the industry, the Scottish Government and those from across the political spectrum, and scrap the plans and duty hikes, which are an act of sabotage to Scotland’s world-class industry.

The industry already faces the risk of Trump tariffs, which cost over £600 million in exports the last time they were applied under his first presidential term. Rather than further damage from the UK Government, the industry needs support, starting with the reversal of the plans to hike duties still further. It is high time that Westminster finally listened to organisations such as the Scotch Whisky Association and stopped discriminating against Scotland’s national drink, which supports more than 40,000 jobs and delivers more than £7.1 billion to the London Treasury every year. The SNP will support new clause 8 if it is pressed.

I have spoken consistently about what is under debate in the Bill, but the wider context cannot be ignored. Labour has no cogent plan for reforming the economy. It seeks to reduce the deficit and not raise taxes, and it wants to stimulate growth with large investments. It is impossible to do all those things at once, and it is astonishing that the Government seem to persist with this wilful ignorance. A Government may increase spending to kick-start the economy and deliver growth and public services, but that requires tax increases and/or deficit spending, both of which the Labour Government are too scared to pursue because of their short-sighted election promises to abide by fiscal rules and not increase the highest-revenue sources. We are therefore stuck in the worst of all possible worlds, with insufficient growth—especially green growth—insufficient investment, a deficit causing a rising debt burden, and no way to increase revenue meaningfully. The UK Government are bizarrely persisting with gaslighting themselves in thinking that they are “fixing the foundations” and delivering growth. They are doing nothing of the sort, and if they stick with this Bill and the Budget on which it is predicated, they never will.

Finally, is it not astonishing that when farmers push back on agricultural property relief, family businesses push back on business property relief, pensioners push back on their winter fuel allowance, the Scotch whisky industry pushes back on duty hikes, the North sea oil and gas industry pushes back on the EPL, and when the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign pushes back, they are all told, “No. The situation is too bad. You’ve just got to suck it up,” but when the non-doms push back, they get swept right to the heart of the Treasury and the Chancellor, and they get whatever they want? That is the Labour Government.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I will speak in favour of new clause 4, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper). The amendment would require the Government to carry out an impact assessment on the changes that the legislation would introduce for small and medium-sized businesses. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and the heart of our local communities, and they create the jobs that we all rely on. I hear time and again from the small businesses across my constituency that they are struggling to keep up with soaring energy prices, business rates and the costs of exporting. The Chancellor is absolutely right to be focused on economic growth; however, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are deeply concerned about the impacts of the changes in the Bill on our high streets, and particularly on those in the hospitality industry, who are very concerned about the impact that duty rises on wine, beer and cider will have.

The wellbeing of small businesses acts as an indicator of the health of the economy as a whole. As such, the new clause would be a useful tool to allow us to understand the broader implications of the legislation on our economic prosperity. More broadly, an impact assessment would look at the combined effect on small businesses, both directly and indirectly, of all policies in the Bill to ensure that SMEs remain at the heart of the Government’s economic policy. It is crucial that the necessary tough spending decisions to clear up the mess that the previous Conservative Government left behind do not hit our small local businesses, which are vital to our economy.

To encourage growth for our small businesses, the Chancellor should be looking to reduce the burden on businesses through means such as cutting Brexit red tape, securing better trade deals with Europe and entering a customs union. The combination of the cost of hiring staff, the cost of additional red tape and higher business rates will be simply too much for many SMEs to absorb, which is why I urge the Minister to support our new clause and assess the impact of the legislation on local businesses.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I rise to speak for the 468 signatories to this petition who are residents of my constituency. I have to tell you that that is about 11 times more Angus and Perthshire Glens constituents than have signed any other petition from this place. Never in my time in this Parliament have I seen MPs perched on windowsills to be in the room for a debate. There are mass demonstrations outside, and there was a demonstration on the South Inch in Perth at the weekend.

This policy is fundamentally unjust. The Government said that they would not do it, and they have gone ahead and done it. They have applied it without any warning. There is no taper into the new regime. It gives no time for farmers to adjust their tax arrangements. It is diametrically opposed to current tax advice, which is grossly unfair. It ignores the fact that there is no actual financial enrichment; farmers simply become the custodian of an asset. It does not go after the non-farming interests that are avoiding tax. It ignores the disproportionate effect on Scotland. It ignores the fact that a quarter of Scottish farms are tenanted—it has zero provision for those—and it does not take cognisance of the 15,000 Scottish crofts that are grossly adversely affected by it.

This policy is economically incoherent. It is a tax on the production of food. It will precipitate a reduction in investment. That will mean lower yields, which will mean higher prices. That will be inflationary, which is the last thing that this economy needs. It is not just farmers who will be undone by this policy; it is the entire agricultural supply chain.

This policy undermines the reinvestment model from generation to generation. It ignores the societal benefit of agriculture to our rural communities. With BPR, it is a betrayal of the divestment drive to which farmers have so dutifully been applying themselves over the past 20 years. It risks the sell-off of family farms across places such as Angus and Perthshire Glens to faceless international corporations that will not leave anything positive behind—certainly not any profit.

This policy is anti-growth. As I suspect the Government now fully realise behind closed doors, it is a disastrous mis-step. It plays fast and loose with the mental health of farmers. Let me echo the chorus from the National Farmers Union Scotland that this policy must be paused and the industry must be properly consulted. The outcome must be the removal of this iniquitous threat to all that we hold dear in our agricultural and rural communities and economies.

On behalf of the agricultural sector in Angus and Perthshire Glens and across the whole of Scotland—in fact, the whole of the United Kingdom, to which I do not often make reference in a speech—it is not too late to do the right thing. I implore the Minister to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke]

I thank my hon. Friend for a very well made point, and farming is indeed often multigenerational. This is putting huge stress on farming families. I myself am from a farming family. My mother is 81, and my father died about a year ago. The pressure that it is putting on her to think about whether she can survive another seven years is so distressing, and I know that she is not alone.

[Dave Doogan]

For very good reason, we do not apply tax to food. Does the hon. Lady agree that for the same good reason, we should presumably not apply tax to the production of food? Does it not amount to the same thing?

[Sarah Dyke]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

Levels of confidence among the farming community are at a worryingly low ebb. The National Audit Office reports that only one in three farmers are confident that DEFRA and its agencies can deliver their proposed changes to schemes and regulations. The family farm tax will only increase pressure on farmers, while burdening with extra uncertainty and anxiety farmers who are already suffering with their mental health. Today marks the beginning of Mind Your Head week. Now in its eighth year, it is a campaign that amplifies mental health awareness, run by the Farm Safety Foundation and Yellow Wellies. This year’s themes are love, positivity and resilience—three characteristics we should show to our farmers.

Recently, the Office for Budget Responsibility assigned any revenue from this tax a high uncertainty rating, stating that any

“yield from this measure is not likely to reach a steady state for at least 20 years.”

The Treasury projects that the combined changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief will raise approximately £520 million annually. Using HMRC figures on the total cost of each relief, however, the Liberal Democrats have calculated that the proportion attributed to the APR changes will be only around £115 million, confirming that this misguided tax will penalise British farmers for essentially no benefit.

In its report, the OBR reiterates that the measure will hit older farmers hardest, because they will find it difficult to quickly put in place the transitional arrangements to restructure their affairs in response to the pending changes. I recently spoke to a farmer from Martock who told me that their parents, who are in their late 80s, are horrified by this tax raid. They do not want to lose their home and their business, but the lack of time to implement the changes may make that their sad reality. They implore the Government to consult on transitional arrangements that work with them and for them.

I fear that these family farms will instead be broken up and parcels of land will be sold off at a deflated land value to already wealthy landowners, who will simply add to their large land portfolios.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore]

My hon. Friend makes the point powerfully: collectively, all industry bodies and professionals in the sector are united. The NFU, the CLA, the CAAV—of which I put it on record that I am a fellow, having previously practised as a rural practice surveyor, so I understand the implications on the value of farmland—and Savills, as a key land agent, are all saying exactly the same thing: that this Government’s policy will have catastrophic consequences. My understanding is that the Chancellor has not yet even bothered to reach out to any of those professional organisations to sit round a table and try to understand their concerns. That point was made very eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst).

[Dave Doogan]

The shadow Minister is articulating the substance of the issue with great passion. Does he agree that at the heart of this fiscal misadventure is classic Treasury dogma, whereby the principal objective is to quantify the price of something and take no cognisance of its value? APR and BPR will unravel for this Government. Does he agree that it would be far better for them to take steps to row back on this policy now, rather than waiting for it to go absolutely pear-shaped?

[Robbie Moore]

The hon. Member makes a very powerful point: this is about the choices that the Labour Government are imposing on many of our family farming businesses. Those families are now having to make difficult decisions about whether to look at disposing of land, plant and machinery or livestock to fit an IHT liability that may come down the line. All of that is reducing their productivity, which will have an impact not only on those family farming businesses, but on UK food production and UK food security. That is why I join all Opposition Members in calling on the Government to change course immediately.

Farmers are not multimillionaires. Many struggle to break even. As my right hon. Friends the Members for Beverley and Holderness and for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) have said, the vast majority of returns for our farming businesses are less than 1%, yet in most cases the value of the land on which they sit will be severely affected by the IHT changes, because the threshold that the Government are bringing out is £1 million. When the average size of a farm in England is 200 acres, and we take into account the farmland, the cottage that might exist on the farm, the plant and machinery, the livestock and the growing crops or stocks that may be in store, the value will be significantly higher than £1 million. That is why the Government need to listen to the NFU and its statistics.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She is absolutely right about the importance of repairing the public finances and supporting public services, for her constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth and indeed for all of our constituents across the country.

I noted that, in her contribution earlier, my hon. Friend made a point about what this Government are doing to support the profitability of the farming sector. She may have seen that, at the Oxford farming conference in January, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs set out the Government’s long-term vision. That includes reforms to use the Government’s own purchasing power to make sure that we are buying more British food, planning reforms to speed up the delivery of infrastructure, and work to ensure supply chain fairness, which will help people involved in the farming industry and more widely, across her constituency and those of other Members here today.

As I said, the decision that we took to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief was one of the difficult but necessary decisions that we needed to take on tax, welfare and spending to restore economic stability, to fix the public finances and to support public services, including an NHS in crisis. We have taken those decisions in a way that makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable.

The reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief mean that, despite the tough fiscal context, the Government will still maintain significant levels of relief from inheritance tax beyond what is available to others. The Government recognise the role that these reliefs play, particularly in supporting small farms and businesses, and, under our reforms, they will continue to play that role.

The case for reform is underlined by the fact that the full, unlimited exemption, as introduced in 1992, has become unsustainable. Under the current system, the benefit of the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to the latest data from HMRC, and as hon. Members have mentioned, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims—that is 117 estates claiming £219 million-worth of relief.

[Dave Doogan]

On the point the Minister just made about the notional value of estates, I think I can help him, because that is where he is going wrong, and where he has taken his Government up an agricultural cul-de-sac. When it comes to agriculture, what is important is not the notional value of the estate, but how someone came by that estate—whether they used billions of pounds of money on which they should have been paying tax in order not to pay tax, or whether they inherited the family farm from the generation that went before. That is the differentiation that the Treasury should be making. The value is irrelevant; the Minister should focus on the nature of the inheritance or acquisition.

[James Murray]

What has driven the Government in making the decision to reform agricultural and business property relief is the overwhelming priority of fixing the public finances in a fair and sustainable way. That is why the statistics to which I just referred, about how agricultural and business property relief have come to be used in recent years, are important for understanding the context in which we decided that the time for reform was now.

Growing the UK Economy

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

As I have confirmed to the House, we are inviting applications from Heathrow, which will be considered in the normal way. When those applications have been received and due diligence has been undertaken, we will be able to report the details that will answer the right hon. Member’s questions.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

It says on the cover that this is about growing the UK economy, but the statement’s substance is much more about growing the English economy. It has a passing reference to Wrexham and a nebulous acknowledgement that the Government will “build a pipeline of investable propositions…starting with strategic partnerships in the Glasgow city region”. Will the Chief Secretary perhaps flesh out what that means and, at the same time, explain why he did not allocate any funding to reimbursing Edinburgh University for the supercomputer, invest in SAF in Grangemouth, or invest in the Acorn project in the north-east?

[Darren Jones]

Scotland is an important part of our United Kingdom economy. We will continue to invest in the country, as we did at the recent Budget, with the largest real-terms increase in spending since devolution. I am always ears-open to opportunities for growth, but the hon. Member might want to speak to his SNP colleagues in the Scottish Government and try to stimulate some investment there as well.

Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

Supporting the rural economy, public services and investment right across the country is part of Labour’s national mission to get the economy growing, but the prerequisite for that investment and economic growth is stable public finances. Without economic stability, we cannot proceed to the investment and growth that we all so desperately need. That is why the decision to target agricultural property relief and business property relief was taken, alongside all the other difficult decisions that we took in the Budget.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

This measure is now revealed to be spectacularly ill-considered, leaving aside the fact that it is also a breathtaking betrayal of farmers, who were promised before the election that this would not happen. The measure groups intergenerational farmers with speculative millionaires seeking to dodge tax by getting involved in farming. It has put an immediate brake on investment in farming, which threatens to lower yields and drive up food prices. That then threatens to put inflationary pressures on the UK economy, which is already in a perilous state. This Government cannot just agree with the OBR when it suits them. They must agree with the OBR regardless of what it says. Will the Minister please respectfully pause the measure, take some time to think about this, and come up with something that will actually deliver for the Treasury but not push our family farming sector under.

[James Murray]

There still seems to be confusion among Opposition Members about what the OBR publication set out. It reiterates the costings that were published at the time of the Budget, on 30 October. It explains how those costings were arrived at, so that people can understand the calculations behind them, but the costings are the same as those published at the time of the Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and for the work she does to support and promote businesses in Dudley. Through our modern industrial strategy, and the targeting of eight sectors in which there is huge potential for growth, we will work with businesses right across the country on, for example, reform of the planning system to make it easier for them to build, and reform of the pension system to get funding for businesses, including those in Dudley, that are looking to grow and expand.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Neither the US Federal Reserve nor the EU Central Bank are engaged in active quantitative tightening, but the Bank of England is. The Bank of England is costing the public finances in the region of £13 billion a year as a result of a fire sale of UK Government bonds. Last time I spoke to the Chancellor about that, she said that that was because of the Bank of England’s operational independence, which we all value, but that is not a licence for impunity. What discussions will she have with the Bank of England about releasing UK Government debt in a way that benefits everybody in the UK?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)]

It is our view that it is absolutely right that the Bank of England has operational independence. That is in line with international standards and what is happening in jurisdictions around the world, including in the United States and the eurozone.

Agricultural and Business Property Relief

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend is right. That is why I appeal to the Minister: if the Government do not care at all—in fact, if the Government see farmers as some sort of class enemy—it still does not make sense to do this, because it will weaken our food security. Go and talk to farmers—as I do in my area all the time—and it is obvious that their personal commitment to things like flood protection, understanding of the land, and thinking in the long term, is not just words.

People think in the long term when there is no thought in their minds of selling. Why would anyone not put their money back in? Farmers put all their money back in because they are happy to do so, and they have a lifestyle as part of that. All that is put under threat if the investment in a piece of machinery or infrastructure that could help them to green their land will be subject to a 20% tax. Suddenly the economics do not add up and the bank will not want to lend.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know, as all of us in this room do, that in GB we enjoy some of the most competitively priced fresh produce available anywhere in Europe and that is precisely because of the investments in production technology that family farms have made over generations. Is he concerned that at a stroke this Government, myopic about the workings of agriculture, have made them immediately—overnight—stop that investment, and consumers will feel that in food prices?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that has not been made so far: we have among the lowest food costs in the world. In fact, all my local farmers are forever moaning at me about how outrageous it is that food is so low in price. As I say to them, the system has allowed them to continue farming, providing first-class food at a very low cost to consumers. It is that carefully balanced ecosystem that will be impacted by this juggernaut creation of the Government, which will raise, if it raises anything at all, very little. That is why it is great to have someone as thoughtful, insightful and empathetic as the Minister on the Government Bench, because we have time to change path away from this ridiculous policy.