National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Tuesday 17th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pippa Heylings]

I agree with the hon. Member. I will give one example: the Arthur Rank hospice, which serves all of Cambridgeshire. I had a tour there and saw the work being done by its dedicated professionals. I was informed by its senior leadership that these hikes in national insurance contributions for employers will be the equivalent of £230,000 in additional payroll costs on top of the fundraising that it already has to do. That is money that it does not have. We know from the debate on assisted dying, assisted suicide and the terminally ill how critical palliative care and end-of-life care is. That is one hospice that will struggle severely to deal with these charges.

Hon. Members have spoken about the GP crisis. According to the British Medical Association, 1,387 GP practices have closed since 2015 and the NHS has lost the equivalent of 1,333 full-time, fully qualified GPs. Each GP is responsible for an average of 2,294 patients, and about 3 million people have been directly affected in the last decade by shrinking GP numbers. At a time when we desperately need more GPs, we are introducing a tax that risks driving even more practices out of business. It is not just me saying that; I am sure that hon. Members across the House will have heard from GPs in their constituencies.

In my constituency of South Cambridgeshire, I have heard from the Harston, Comberton, Queen Edith, Eversden and Melbourn practices. I have spoken in particular to Dr Gee of Harston surgery, who has told me that his practice with 7,600 patients faces a £20,000 bill from April just to maintain its current services—just to stand still.

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

The hon. Lady is making a tremendously informed speech and demonstrating a level of understanding of primary care and the care sector that we could only dream of from the Government. Is it her concern that many charities, voluntary sector organisations and GP surgeries are already operating on the thinnest margins of financial sustainability and that this measure will torpedo the very organisations that protect our communities from absolute chaos? Secondary care cannot do it alone; it is upheld by primary care and the care sector. Is she as concerned as many other hon. Members that this will cause absolute chaos?

[Pippa Heylings]

I agree with the hon. Member. I know that the Government are in conversation with GPs, but GPs are writing to us saying that they are seriously concerned.

The GP in Harston said:

“GPs cannot raise prices or operate at a loss.”

They have not had clarification or confirmation from the Government about how funding that is to be given to others in the public sector will be available to them. Just at the critical time when GPs are coming to their annual spending reviews and budgeting, the Government are bringing them this uncertainty. GPs do not feel that they are getting the right messaging or any kind of clarity that will save people’s jobs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Member is very kind to give way. Twice in the past couple of minutes, he has used the word “ultimately”—“Ultimately we will have to do this, and ultimately we will have to do that.” It is “actually” that he should be saying. You actually have to make sure that there is funding, not ultimately—that can wait for another day. Actually is what will happen as soon as this legislation comes to pass—you will be in an absolute quagmire.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Mr Doogan, I will not be in a quagmire.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Sandher]

I direct the hon. Gentleman to today’s labour market statistics. Employment is still high; unemployment is about the same as it was; and I think inactivity is falling. In the official statistics, the picture looks good.

More broadly, vacancies are not the measure that we want to look at. Instead, we want to look at the number of people in jobs. The revenue that we are raising today will be invested in actions that directly create those good jobs. The warm homes plan will upgrade 300,000 homes, which is tens of thousands of good jobs. The expansion of early years childcare is tens of thousands of good jobs. Businesses need to know that they have the healthy workforce that they need, and more people who are available to work. This is a Budget for growth and for jobs.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the expansion of early years childcare, but that will not be of much use if nurseries shut down because they cannot pay their national insurance. Does he understand that dynamic?

[Dr Sandher]

I absolutely understand the benefits of early years childcare, which is why we are so proud that it is a key part of this Government’s opportunity mission and is one of our milestones. We know that money invested today will pay dividends in the future. Labour Members we are absolutely committed to expanding and investing in early years childcare.

More broadly, this measure is also about investing in our young people. One in three young people is experiencing mental health problems, and one in 20 is too sick to work. That number is only rising. There has been a threefold increase in health problems that make it too difficult to do day-to-day activities. This generation of mine is without hope and without health. For those who have been struck down by hopelessness, and who are now too sick to work, our “Get Britain Working” programme, combining health, skills and employment support, is rebuilding confidence. It is helping people into good jobs, and is restoring dignity, purpose and sense of community to every person and place in our nation.

This Bill speaks to our governing philosophy, which is that those with the broadest shoulders should carry the heaviest load. As we have seen, we are changing our nation and rebuilding hope in our communities, our country, and indeed our democracy. We are building a country that gets better, rather than worse; where every person can get a good job; where every person can afford a decent home; and where every person can get the skills that they need, so that we can all live once again in a country where working hard means a decent life. That is what we are investing in, and that is why we are proud to raise revenue through the measure that we are debating today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ms Creasy]

I have worked with the hon. Lady on various issues, and I hope she will give me the latitude to expand my argument and set out my proposals, which we could move forward on together as a House. I do not doubt her sincerity, but I also recognise the fiscal destruction of the previous Government that we need to deal with, which means we need to tell the British public the truth about what needs to happen. Making unfunded promises is as bad as not promising to act.

Parent surveys show that a real difference is made when 30 hours of childcare is offered. That amount of childcare enables families to make choices about getting back into work. If we want to get to 30 hours by September next year, we need 60,000 additional childcare places and 29,000 extra members of staff. If we do not have fundamental root and branch reform of how we fund the provision of childcare, that will cost about £72 million extra a year on hiring staff alone. That is the challenge we face if we want to get this right.

I know how hard the Minister is working to get the economy growing again. I know he is going to hear pleas from every single sector about the impact of the national insurance changes; nobody should be under any illusion that they are not difficult changes. I make a plea for the childcare sector because I believe that in the end, it will pay for itself. If we are able to get more people back to work, especially mums, who all too often end up bearing the burden of childcare, we will be able to raise more taxes and there will be more investment as a result.

That is particularly true of the childcare sector because it is a people-intensive industry. Staffing costs make up 75% of a nursery’s running costs, compared with 30% for the average restaurant. Because the previous Government systemically failed to invest in childcare, the majority of childcare has been provided by the private sector. Some 85% of places are delivered outside the state sector. There is little flexibility on numbers in the sector, because ratios—the number of people looking after little people—matter. These are not businesses with small numbers of staff; an average nursery has 14 members of staff, which means the additional costs will be about £36,000 to £39,000 a year. Around £14,000 of that will be national insurance.

Many Members agree that we need to invest in that childcare and will be pleased to see this Government trying to address the balance. The damage done under the previous Government meant that 83% of nursery providers said the funding they received did not cover their costs. That is why closures increased by 50% in the last couple of years. This Government have already increased the funding for our nurseries, but while that takes account of increases in wages costs, it does not take account of the increases in national insurance.

I tabled new clause 4, which is about having a review of one element of all that, to ensure that we do not cut off our nose to spite our face when trying to get more people into work. We recognise that extra national insurance costs may have consequences, be they recruitment freezes, reduced staff training or even closures, at a time when we want the sector to expand. Indeed, the majority of nurseries have staff vacancies, so they need extra people already.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Lady is making a compelling case of logic as it applies to early years provision, and I do not think anybody in this place could argue with the logic she advances. Is it not so robust, however, that it also applies to primary care, hospices and charities, if it applies to nurseries?

[Ms Creasy]

I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that I am talking about a specific function of the way in which the childcare sector operates and the fact that it generates public Exchequer funding when we get people back into work. My argument here is that we invest to save. This is specifically about childcare. I am sure the hon. Member has read new clause 4 in depth, by the look on his face.

[Dave Doogan]

indicated assent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I start by thanking the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for all his work on the Bill.

The burden of tax has fallen disproportionately on the shoulders of working people for too long. Families across the country and in my constituency, who are already battling the cost of living crisis, have been left to carry the weight, while larger businesses and the wealthiest have been let off far too lightly. That cannot continue. This Labour Government believe in a fairer tax system, where larger businesses and the richest pay a little more in tax to help fund our NHS and our public services, which working people rely on. That is the right and fair choice.

The Tory record on investment in our NHS is terrible. I can see that in my constituency. Although Princess Alexandra hospital was on the list of 40 new hospitals proposed by the previous Government, when we came to power it turned out that the money for it was not there. I thank the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care for allowing me to constantly follow him around the Palace and lobby him on that point.

The decision on employer national insurance is difficult, but it is the right choice. Waking up on 5 July, we knew that we would have to take these difficult decisions, but in the long run we really will see the difference. Being tough now can bring about real change in the future.

It has not gone unnoticed that the small businesses and charities that form the backbone of our local economy need to be protected and valued. Here are a few things the Labour Government are doing to achieve just that. We have increased the employment allowance to £10,500 and expanded it to all eligible employers. As a result, we will see two remarkable things: the OBR expects 250,000 employers to benefit from these changes and an additional 820,000 employers to see no change at all. We are seeking to strike a balance.

My hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) mentioned Small Business Saturday. I recently visited a wonderful local charity called Stort Valley Gifting, a brilliant local business that sources local produce and makes up hampers. I have to declare an interest at this point, because that is where I am doing my Christmas shopping this year, but I would add that my predecessor, Robert Halfon, did the same thing.

Labour also recognises the vital role played by public sector employees in our schools, hospitals and councils. That is why we have committed to providing support for additional employer NIC costs, ensuring that our public services remain resilient and well-resourced not just for today, but for future generations. We can protect working people while making the wealthiest contribute their fair share, so that we all contribute our fair share. Everyone from every walk of life is included as these decisions are being debated and made. We can choose to invest in our NHS and our public services; we can choose growth and fairness; we can choose to rebuild the future for generations to come, instead of the instability that has held our country back for too long. If we want the benefits of this Budget, we must make the hard decisions to get there.

[Dave Doogan]

I rise to speak to defend Scotland’s NHS, including our GPs, hospices, care homes and nurseries, from this Labour Government’s national insurance tax hike, as well as to protect the charity and higher education sectors. I am proud of the amendments the SNP has tabled to the Bill to protect these vital services from the increase in national insurance contributions put forward by the Government. The fears are genuine and escalating over the job cuts and service reductions that will be the inevitable and plain and simple consequence of this fiscal madness.

We in the SNP have consistently highlighted the brutal impact that Labour’s tax rises will have on GPs, charities, care homes and other sectors, with organisations warning that deep cuts will be made to the services they provide—vital services that are no less essential to communities and individuals than secondary care services just because they are received in the community or from a charity. That is why we have tabled amendments 4, 5, 6 and 26 in my name and the names of SNP colleagues.

On higher education, the University of Edinburgh was last month reported to have opened a redundancy process for staff as a result of Labour’s tax hike, and Universities Scotland is warning of a potential £45 million tax burden for Scottish universities. Yet again, we see key sectors of the Scottish economy hammered by a London Treasury out of touch, out of ideas and, if this goes through, demonstrably out of control. Higher education, agriculture, and oil and gas are all demonstrably larger elements of the Scottish economy than they are of the English or UK economy. This Government, with NICs and other specific tax increases or allowance removals, are hammering particularly important elements of the Scottish economy. As usual, what England wants Scotland gets.

The Labour Government’s national insurance increase will be a disaster for Scotland’s healthcare providers, voluntary organisations, nurseries, universities and colleges, but who on the Labour Benches has come along to speak up for those organisations in Scotland? Nobody. Not one Labour Scottish MP made a speech to protect Scotland’s interests. But Labour MPs from Scotland were there to nod through and vote through the cut to the winter fuel payment, freezing Scotland’s pensioners; Labour’s bedroom tax, entrenching poverty in Scotland; Labour’s two-child limit, punishing the poorest in Scotland; taxing Scotland’s oil and gas sector to the brink of extinction; attacking Scottish agriculture; and gouging Scotch whisky. They were all here to make sure that that happened and to speak to that, so I will leave the people of Scotland to draw their own conclusions about this particular lack of activity from Scottish Labour MPs.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. When did the SNP do an about-turn on Scottish oil and gas? As far as I can tell, it seemed as opposed to its continuation as the Labour party is now in government.

[Dave Doogan]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I refer him to Hansard from the previous Parliament. The comments I have just made are entirely consistent with the comments I made in the last parliamentary term.

With each day that passes, we learn more about the damage Labour’s Budget will inflict on household bills, businesses and charities, yet despite those warnings the Labour Government are determined not to listen and are ploughing ahead with this devastating proposal. The SNP will always stand up and protect Scottish jobs, Scottish services and Scotland’s people. That is reflected in John Swinney’s budget—a balanced budget in the interests of the people of Scotland and the businesses of Scotland. That is the SNP way. We have done it this year and we have done it in every one of the 17 previous years we have been in the Scottish Government.

Do the UK Government understand how commissioned services work? We have heard that quite a lot this afternoon and it is becoming increasingly clear that, at best, they have a sketchy understanding of why vital services are provided by non-statutory service providers. What is going to happen when this measure unwinds into the real economy is that charities, GP surgeries, hospices and other vital elements of healthcare provision will not have reserves. They are already operating at the very margins of financial sustainability, so when the sums do not add up, they will have two choices. They will approach the commissioning authority that has commissioned their services to ask for an uplift in their fees. The answer will be no, because the money is not there. Alternatively, they will withdraw their services or draw down their services. Either way, it will be enormously challenging and extremely damaging for some of the most vulnerable in our society.

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech. The Labour party has said in the main that it is the right choice to increase NICs. Like Scotland, Northern Ireland’s health and social care will be hardest hit. The Northern Ireland children’s hospice estimates that half a million pounds will be needed to cope with the NICs increase. This is a hospice that provides care for the most vulnerable in our society: children with cancer and children with life-limiting conditions. Does he agree that the measure will see the end of these excellent services, which are much needed in our communities?

[Dave Doogan]

I agree entirely with the hon. Member. There is no road back from that. The difficulty that I implore the Government to pay attention to is that when the damage that will be inflicted by this measure is inflicted by this measure, they cannot just say, “Oops, we got that wrong. If you wouldn’t mind all coming back and start delivering these commissioned services, we’ll admit we got it wrong.” When it’s gone, it’s gone. It is not acceptable that the Government are playing fast and loose with the safety net that exists in our communities and our society to catch the most vulnerable people and prevent absolute chaos. That is exactly what the Government are doing.

However, the Government should not take the hon. Lady’s word for it, or mine. We can listen to people who are at the coalface. This is primary evidence from the Scottish Huntington’s Association:

“The entire charity sector is increasingly burdened by climbing costs, funding issues, recruitment and retention challenges and an increased demand for services.

All too many have had to close their doors, with more expected to follow. Additional burdens being imposed by government at this juncture”,

the association says, are deeply unhelpful.

“Coming just weeks after the prime minister announced a ‘new partnership that can harness civil society’s full potential’ this must surely be an unfortunate oversight, and one that simply cannot be allowed to stand given the scale of its implications for the not-for-profit sector and the many thousands of people who depend upon it in the absence of alternative statutory services.”

It is not just the association that takes that view. Turning Point Scotland has advised that this measure alone will add £1.1 million to its costs overnight, and it comes at a time of a pressured environment, when many of its services are already running at a deficit. That is true of the voluntary sector, but also of the nursery and college sectors.

On healthcare, I wonder whether the Government understand the concept of whole-system costs. As I and many Members have said, when charities fold, as many of them will, the services that they were providing will no longer be there. Who will then provide that care? It will be the provider of last resort, secondary care. People will present themselves at hospitals, where there will be no room. It will be chaotic, but in a purely Treasury and fiscal sense, it will be an extremely expensive form of chaos, for which the Government, through the whole-system paradigm, will need to pick up the costs. I am not certain that the Minister has been properly briefed by his Treasury officials on what the risk assessment actually says about the human and financial costs of the change when this heads south. This is what happens when the Chancellor treats the real economy as her own personal political piggy-bank. It will not be possible to fix this once it has been broken.

I have some sympathy for the Minister in one respect. We have heard, and I will not repeat, the headline figure—the gross quantum that the Government expect to generate by lowering the threshold and increasing the rates of employer national insurance. By the time everyone who is in a position to adjust their business and employment characteristics to accommodate it has done so, by the time the Government have compensated elements of the public sector and by the time the economy has contracted to accommodate that, we are already down from £25-something billion to £10 billion-odd. That is a lot of pain to accept to gain £10 billion.

If the Government were to exclude or make provision for hospices, nurseries, the voluntary sector more generally and universities, that £10 billion would be reduced to an embarrassingly small figure, so they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I nevertheless encourage them to have the courage of their convictions and put the interests of the people of these islands first, rather than the political expediency of careering headlong towards a cliff edge that is as plain as the nose on the end of your face and jumping over it anyway in order to save face—because the Government will not save face. There is no escape from the corner they have painted themselves into. They can either U-turn and incur the political costs, which I would recommend, given that they have just come through the door—they should be at the height of their political powers, but if this is the height of their political powers, goodness me!—or they can carry on regardless, and pick up the pieces of all the chaos that will be wreaked across the sector.

This incompetence, for it is incompetence, did not start when the Government walked through the doors of Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street. It started back in the election campaign, when they proscribed the use of the single biggest lever in the Treasury’s toolkit to get additional funding. They said that they would not increase income tax on ordinary working people, although with these measures they will take away financial opportunities and, actually, people’s money through payroll changes anyway. It is smoke and mirrors. However, by painting themselves into that corner on income tax, they have created a situation in which they have to make the most damaging tax intervention possible, which is entirely contrary to their stated ambition of generating growth.

Quite a lot of Labour Members have said, “It’s all very well listening to the Opposition, but what would you do?” I will give them two really easy things that the Government could have done. If they had mirrored the income tax thresholds that the Scottish Government have introduced, they would have generated £19 billion. That would not have had a single impediment on the real economy, would not have choked off growth and would not have put primary care on the precipice. They could have done that. Or, if they had thought that they could get by on less than £19 billion—they will have to, because they will raise less than £10 billion from this measure—they could have just reversed the previous Government’s two cuts to employee’s national insurance. Judging by the arithmetic in this place, the Conservatives did not exactly get a brilliant political return on cutting employee’s national insurance twice in two quarters of one financial year. The Government could have reversed those cuts, which would have netted £10 billion—roughly where they are now, on aggregate—but no, they did not want to do that and they refuse to do so.

Finance Bill

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

We in the SNP and the Scottish Government believe in progressive taxation. I think that is evident from the changes we have made to income tax since those matters were devolved. We would like a more progressive influence in the changes before us, rather than simply clawing at allowances and increasing the rate. Nothing in clauses 7 to 12 is designed to make matters better in Scotland, but at least the Labour party is consistent on that.

Inheritance tax and capital gains tax are increasingly out of step with modern activity in the UK economy. As the IPPR points out, since the 1980s, household wealth in the UK has risen from three times the national income to more than seven times, yet over the same timeframe wealth taxes have not risen at all as a share of that income. Taxing unearned wealth more fairly and efficiently is a legitimate long-term ambition in a state where the economy is on life support. Taxpayers are left wondering from this Budget whether more tax rises are on the way, after a substantial lack of clarity from the Chancellor, who said a week or so ago that the Government would not come back for more tax rises, or indeed more borrowing, but has since refused to echo those rather injudicious remarks. If she does not have the confidence to stand by her own statements, it is hard to imagine the effect on business and investor confidence across the UK.

The Chancellor should have worked with economic experts, such as those at the IFS, to create a fairer and more growth-friendly capital gains tax, but instead she has been captured by the same old Treasury dogma that has served the UK so badly over recent decades. Capital gains tax raises a growing amount of revenue—about £15 billion last year—partly reflecting the increased role of wealth accumulation in the UK, but it is still less than 2% of all tax take, and although CGT is paid by about 350,000 people each year, two thirds of receipts are from just 12,000 people with an average gain of £4 million.

CGT rates vary significantly across assets, and are almost always significantly lower than income tax rates. That rate differential is unfair and creates undesirable distortions, including to what people invest in and how long they choose to work. The IFS has criticised the Chancellor for choosing simply to increase CGT rates with no effort to carry out what it describes as much-needed reform. It also describes the whole design of CGT as “flawed”, adding:

“There are steps the government could and should take to make the tax fairer and less harmful to economic growth and well-being.”

Moreover, the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation proposes further changes to CGT, including aligning capital gains tax rates with income tax rates, introducing allowances to incentivise investment, taxing the increase in an asset’s value when it is inherited, and implementing an exit tax to prevent individuals from dodging UK taxes on gains made while residing in the UK. It estimates that that package would generate £14 billion, but none of those measures is in the Bill.

The IFS says that if the Chancellor chose to raise CGT rates while leaving the flawed tax base unchanged, she would be choosing to raise some limited revenue at the expense of weakening savings and investment incentives, and of further distorting which assets people buy and how long they hold on to them. The IFS says that that would not be the decision of a Chancellor who is serious about growth. Well, what a portent that turned out to be. She did not reform CGT, and look what happened to growth: forecasts were down immediately after first contact with this inverse Midas-touch Chancellor. It is clear that, in preparing for the Budget, she could have done with a full hour or more with the IFS, but I doubt that she would have listened.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We come to the final Back-Bench contribution, and have saved the best until last. I call Bobby Dean.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

Certainty is only good if it relates to a positive outlook, not a negative outlook. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked a clear question about the duration. It was not about whether the sector pays fair taxes; we all believe that people should pay fair taxes. Does the Minister still believe that the industry is making extraordinary profits?

[James Murray]

I would like to explain to the hon. Gentleman how the energy security investment mechanism works, because that, to be fair, was put in place by the previous Government, and we are maintaining it. It says that if prices drop below a certain threshold for six months, the energy profits levy ceases early. That gives some certainty and predictability to the oil and gas sector. If prices go below that level, the sector can have confidence that the energy security investment mechanism will end the levy early. If that does not happen, the levy will continue, as we have said, until March 2030.

I am keen—I will set out a few more details later—to engage with the oil and gas sector on the regime post the energy profits levy, because it is important for oil and gas companies making decisions about investment to have certainty about what will happen up until March 2030, and to understand what the regime might be like thereafter. That is why I am looking forward to my conversations with the sector on what the post energy profits levy regime will look like.

Long-term certainty and confidence is being provided to the oil and gas sector by our retention of the levy’s price floor, the energy security investment mechanism, which I was explaining to the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan). It means that the levy will cease permanently if oil and gas prices fall below a set level for a sustained period. Furthermore, as I also just said, to provide stability for the long term, the Government will publish a consultation in early 2025 on how the tax regime will respond to price shocks once the energy profits levy comes to an end. That will give oil and gas producers and their investors predictability and certainty on the future of the fiscal regime, which will support their ability to continue investing, while also ensuring that the nation receives a fair return at a time of exceptional crisis.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

I will speak to clauses 15 to 18 briefly, but mainly to new clause 3 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). It would require the Chancellor to publish within three months a review of the expected changes introduced by the Bill on employment, capital expenditure, production, demand and the economy. It is inherently sensible, and considers the importance of the oil and gas sector to regional and national employment and economic growth in the UK.

On the need to review the impact on employment, 82% of direct jobs in the oil and gas sector are located in Scotland. My Gordon and Buchan constituency is at the heart of that. New clause 3 would review the impact of the changes to employment across the country, as it is not just direct jobs that are on the line but supply chain and other indirect jobs. Of those, 90,000 are in Scotland and 200,00 are across the UK.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Member highlights the economic consequences of this heading south on jobs in Scotland. Is she surprised and disappointed, as I am, that not a single Scottish Labour MP has turned up to take part in this vital debate?

[Harriet Cross]

We were saying a moment ago how extraordinary it is that they are not here to stand up for their main industry. That shows how much they value or care about jobs across Scotland.

We are seeing warning signs already of the impact of these measures. Just a week after the Budget, Apache confirmed that it would cease operations in the North sea, saying:

“The onerous financial impact of the EPL, combined with the substantial investment that will be necessary to comply with regulatory requirements, makes production of hydrocarbons beyond 2029 uneconomic.”

According to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, 100,000 jobs may be at risk across the UK because of the changes. Offshore Energies UK says that 35,000 jobs directly related to projects that may not now go ahead are at risk. New clause 3, which would allow the Government the opportunity to assess and account for the impact of the Bill’s changes on jobs relating to the oil and gas sector, the supply chain and the wider economy, should be welcomed across the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Before I call Dave Doogan, I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they need to be bobbing consistently—I cannot read people’s minds to put together a speaking list.

[Dave Doogan]

The changes to the EPL, particularly those set out in clauses 15 and 17, will have a hugely damaging effect on jobs and the Scottish economy. This is also an inauspicious day for Scotland in this so-called United Kingdom as Norway’s sovereign wealth fund records a €1.7 trillion breakthrough, while Scotland’s oil wealth has been squandered by successive Westminster Governments. Norway gets financial security in perpetuity; Scotland gets Labour’s bedroom tax, cuts to winter fuel payments for our elderly and the highest energy prices in the G20—that is the Union dividend wrapped up and served on a plate right there. More than £400 billion has flowed from our waters to the Treasury over the years, with very little coming back in the other direction. Rather than reverse the train, the Labour Government have, with this increase to the EPL, chosen to accelerate it.

The cumulative effect of clauses 15 to 18 will sound the death knell for Scotland’s hydrocarbon production in advance, crucially, of the transition—economically illiterate, fiscally incompetent and with industrial suicide as the result. A windfall tax is supposed to be a tax on extraordinary profits, yet the extraordinarily high global oil and gas prices that preceded the introduction of the tax have long since abated. Through these changes, the Labour party jeopardises investment in Scotland’s offshore energies and risks the future of our skilled workforce and our ability to hit net zero while employing those workers. Analysis from Offshore Energies UK shows that the increase and extension of the EPL risks costing the economy £13 billion and putting 35,000 jobs at risk.

The analysis from OEUK also shows a collapse in viable capital investment offshore under these changes from £14.1 billion to £2.3 billion in the period ’25-29. It is increasingly apparent that the Government do not really understand how investment horizons work offshore. They are not on a month-to-month basis; they take years to work up. This loss of economic value impacts on not only the core sector, but domestic supply chain companies, many of whom exist in my constituency, which have an essential role to play in the just transition.

The Labour party promised that there would be no cliff edge, yet it has concocted one for the 35,000 workers whose jobs this EPL change puts at risk. Labour had claimed that these changes would keep the UK in line with Norway, but the regime after Labour’s changes cannot be compared to that of Norway, which allows companies a maximum £78 of relief per £100 expenditure —in the UK, this relief would be £46.25. After these past couple of weeks, I am given to wondering if those on the Treasury Front Bench can actually count.

Changes to the EPL will hinder the just transition. The Government argue that the reduction in the rate of the decarbonisation investment allowance to 66% will maintain the overall cumulative value of relief for investment expenditure following the rate increase, reflecting the fact that this relief will increase in value against a higher levy rate. However, the policy still reflects a political choice by Labour to deprioritise investment in decarbonisation. Rather than allowing more valuable decarbonisation relief as the solitary positive by-product of its tax hike, Labour has striven to ensure that there is absolutely no silver lining to this fiscal attack cloud on Scotland’s energy industry.

[Mr Snowden]

At the heart of this, when we have comparisons to Norway, is a sheer focus on trying to squeeze as much taxation out of the industry as possible, without a focus on how to become more competitive. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that what we need for jobs and for energy security in the UK is to compare ourselves to the most competitive oil and gas economies in the world, and not those that squeeze and tax the most out of the industry and kill jobs?

[Dave Doogan]

Exactly. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of jobs, and the Government are playing fast and loose with jobs in the oil and gas sector. They are playing Russian roulette. They do not seem to understand that when what they have got wrong comes home to roost, they cannot just say, “Sorry, we got that wrong.” When it is gone, it is gone—they cannot bring it back. This is 2024, not 1972. We are already in the closing chapter of the sector; it will not be coming back. This Government seem to completely misunderstand that.

The simple truth is that the UK state cannot meet net zero or create green growth if Labour’s policies to hack away at investment in both the domestic workforce and the sector are allowed to progress. It is clear that the Labour party is abandoning Scotland’s existing energy sector, and putting at risk the just transition into the bargain. With these changes to the EPL, Labour will be creating the worst of all worlds: it will starve industry of investment, sacrifice the jobs of those who can deliver net zero, threaten energy security, keep energy bills high and harm the economy of Scotland, while at the very same time failing to invest the money required to truly deliver against a green transition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is absolutely by putting in place the measures for transition that we will meet net zero. If we continue with business as usual and continue to listen to people who ultimately do not understand that unless we get to net zero our whole economy will suffer, then people will suffer. We will also have big, big problems with issues such as huge migration if climate change can rule unchallenged. This is why the Liberal Democrats believe the transition to net zero is important and why we need to put measures in place to make that happen. It is disappointing that the Conservatives, as the previous Government and now the Opposition, still do not understand how urgently we require climate action.

[Dave Doogan]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. What is her understanding of what will happen to domestic consumption of oil and gas products in the United Kingdom if the domestic industry atrophies but domestic demand still exists? What will happen in that scenario? Where will the oil and gas come from, or will we just give it up overnight?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. The whole argument is that we will continue to rely on oil and gas for the time being, but unless we start to change something, on the current projection we will not get to net zero as urgently as we need to. Progress has been too slow, so the longer we hesitate the more difficult it will become. The new Government have understood that urgency, and the Liberal Democrats support them in dealing with this issue with more urgency than we saw from the previous Government. I therefore repeat that we support the measures, but we would like the Government to support our new clause 2. As I said, it will show what we can raise by closing the loophole. It would by extension, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans clarified, show what has been squandered by the previous Government—money that could have been invested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sammy Wilson]

Only a fool would say that climate change is not happening. Climate change has occurred in all the time that the earth has been in existence. Of course it happens, and of course it is happening. The hon. Lady asks me a question to which I think anybody could give an easy answer. Yes, climate change is happening, but does that mean that we have identified all the sources of the change in our climate? Does it also mean that we should distort our economy, in such a way as she would suggest, to try to make changes to the world’s climate, especially given that other countries are not making any changes to their economy and are not following our lead? They are simply ignoring us and doing what they believe is best for their own economies.

The second point I want to make is that we are leaving ourselves open to a situation in which companies that we need to invest in energy production will not do so. The OBR has made that quite clear, but even if it had not made its predictions, economic logic should make us understand that if we take investment allowances away from people and tax them, they will have less money to invest.

The Minister makes a great point: by putting all these measures on the statute book, he creates certainty for the industry. He does create certainty, because anybody looking at the Bill knows for certain what the future entails: they are going to be taxed until the pips squeak, so they will look for other places to go and make their investment. He argues that putting out a tax plan somehow gives assurance to companies, but sometimes it confirms their prejudice that Britain will not be a place where they have a future, or where they wish to invest.

I turn to the third impact of these measures, building on a point made by the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley. The Government’s whole approach is to tax oil and gas companies, get money, and help working people by putting it into schools and so on. But the predictions are that we will not get more revenue, because if there is less production, there is less tax to be paid. If there is less tax to be paid, the Government have less revenue to invest in the things that hon. Members on both sides of the House would wish them to invest in. Where does that tax go? It will go to foreign countries, because that is where production will take place and where the oil companies will be taxed. They will get taxed where they make their profits. If they are not making any profits in the United Kingdom, they will not pay any revenue in the United Kingdom. They will take their production and tax revenue elsewhere.

There does not appear to be any economic logic to this proposal, other than that the oil companies are seen as bad so the Government have to tax them, even though they are taxed heavily already, and that the Government want to ensure that we have this transition to net zero, even though we know that we will still need the product that the oil companies produce for many decades into the future and we will be turning our back on that production in the United Kingdom.

If the Government are so sure that this cunning plan is going to work—I think Baldrick would have been embarrassed by this cunning plan, I have to say—they should not fear any examination of it. They should welcome it. In fact, maybe once the assessment is done, they will be able to point to red faces on the Opposition side of the House. If I were as certain as the Minister is that his plan was going to work, I would be saying, “Right, we’ll do the assessment and we’ll make you eat your words.” I suspect that the reason that new clause 2 will be rejected today is that the red faces and the eating of words are going to be on the Government’s side of the House. Unfortunately, the people who will suffer will be the hundreds of thousands of people facing rising fuel bills, the 100,000 workers who will face redundancies and an industry that we very much need in this country going into decline.

[Dave Doogan]

On a point of order, Madam Chair. The last but one speaker, the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), called me out regarding my perfectly legitimate comment that there was not a single Scottish Labour MP in here. I chose my words carefully, taking part in this debate. I appreciate that there is a Labour Member here who, unless I am very much mistaken, is fulfilling the role of a Parliamentary Private Secretary and therefore will not be taking part in the debate. I ask your guidance, Madam Chair, on whether it is legitimate to call somebody out in a debate and not give them an opportunity to respond. I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley to correct the record, but she refused to give way. How can we correct the record to underline the fact that there is not a single Scottish Labour MP in here taking part in this debate on Scotland’s energy?

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Caroline Nokes)]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is not a matter for the Chair, and therefore I cannot provide advice as to how he can put that on the record. He will know as well as other hon. Members do that it is entirely at the discretion of the individual contributing at that time whether or not they take an intervention, but he has done good work in putting his point on the record via the mechanism of a point of order.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I will not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I feel that my hon. Friend’s intervention relates to the debate in hand, as we have had to take a tough decision on taxation policy in order to fund our public services. Those public services are, of course, enjoyed by people across the country, including farmers and those in rural communities.

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

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[James Murray]

I will make some progress.

As I was saying, we could not justify leaving the situation unchanged, with a full, unlimited tax relief benefiting a very small number of estates by a very significant amount, given that there is such an urgent need to repair the public finances and to improve the hospitals, schools and roads on which people across the country depend, including those in rural communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)]

The Government have made many claims about this policy that are not credible, but I wish to address only four.

First, they outrageously claimed that they would not do it. The Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), said last year:

“We have no intention of changing APR.”

He said that given the situation that farmers are in, a Government cannot possibly go to people and demand more taxes. I am sorry he is not here today to hear his own words.

Secondly, the Government claim the change is unavoidable as they desperately need the £500 million they claim that it will raise. The £500 million that they give to farms overseas and the £9 billion that they were all too happy to hand over to public sector unions says otherwise.

Thirdly, the Government claim that these people are rich. That completely misunderstands agriculture and the countryside. A farm is not an asset on a balance sheet. Our farmers are stewards of their land, holding it for the next generation and the generation after that. It is not the fault of farmers—especially those in places such as my constituency in Kent, with its astronomical house prices—that their land is so valuable in a way that does not at all reflect their farm’s profitability.

[Dave Doogan]

Is the hon. Member, like me, slightly irate when she hears UK Government Ministers talking about how the terms of the proposed agricultural property relief are much more favourable than the rate that other people have to pay? Inheriting the family farm is not like inheriting your mother’s house. You do not liquidate the asset and then live the high life; you just get on with the job that you were doing the day before and the day before that. There is no enrichment involved, making the Government’s policy utterly baseless.

[Katie Lam]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. My farmers tell me that these inheritance tax bills will take decades of profit to pay off, so they will keep doing the job that they were doing yesterday, but with a fraction of the cash that they had before—which was not a lot to begin with.

Finally, I want to address the idea that farmers can simply give farms away and live another seven years. It is incredible that the Government should introduce a tax in one breath and encourage people to avoid it in the next, and it makes a mockery of the whole policy. If it is true, then the tax will not raise any money for the Government, but instead increase bureaucracy and advisory fees for farmers. Mostly, though, for many people, it is not an option or it will not work. People have not been given enough time to plan for these changes. My constituent Ross grows hops in Tenterden. As he watched the Budget, his father, who is in his 70s, was suffering from sepsis and fighting for his life in hospital.

Especially in farming, our most dangerous industry, people cannot guarantee that they will live another seven years after having handed over the farm. Another of my constituents is in remission, having recently recovered from cancer. If the cancer returns, it is likely to be terminal. This constituent is in their early 50s. Are the Government seriously suggesting that my constituent should hand over, not just the farm, but the home that they live in to their teenage children?

Many of my farmers live in their farmhouses and are planning to work the rest of their days. They do not have pensions; they do not have plans that would allow them to spend the last decade of their lives—of course, it may be much more—no longer farming the land that they have farmed for the whole of their lives up until this point. Finally, to raise a point that seems to have been almost entirely ignored, doing this will incur eye-watering capital gains tax bills. For some of my farmers, it will mean hundreds of years’ worth of land revaluation that they similarly cannot afford to pay.

Employer National Insurance Contributions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our record on employment shows that we were a job-creating machine after 2010, and the statistics he cites are quite right.

When it came to business—this is a killer worthy of a stand-up comedy routine—the manifesto said:

“Labour will…support business through a stable policy environment”.

Of course, we know that all sorts of businesses have been hit by this tax increase, including many that directly support our public services: our hospices, our GPs and our pharmacists. Marie Curie has said that it is about to get a tax bill for an additional £3 million. Just think of the impact that will have.

The question that many are now feverishly and worriedly asking is whether there is more to come. Are the Government going to run out of road with their approach to our economy, and will they come back for more? Well, the Chancellor recently told the CBI that the Government will not be

“coming back with more borrowing or more taxes.”

Yet when the Leader of the Opposition put this assertion to the Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions today, we heard no answer. When I twice asked exactly that question of the Chancellor yesterday, we heard no response. Currently, these businesses do not know whether the Chancellor’s assertion that there will be no more borrowing and no more taxes is true or false.

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

It sounds like the shadow Chancellor is unconvinced by the shrill chants of Labour Members that the Government will fix the foundations of the economy, and he has good reason for being suspicious. In October, when the Government had scarcely been in office for three months, they had more in-month borrowing than any UK Government since 1993, with the exception of one month during covid. Does that look like fixing the foundations to the shadow Chancellor?

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I welcome the work that my hon. Friend does on the all-party parliamentary group for Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire. As I announced in October, the UK Infrastructure Bank has now become the national wealth fund and it will expand its team and be headquartered in the brilliant city of Leeds, to realise our ambition on the national wealth fund. The national wealth fund will also have a strong regional focus, working with the mayors, including Tracy Brabin in West Yorkshire, so that we can realise the potential of all our regions, including Yorkshire. Further details on the national infrastructure and service transformation authority’s governance and location will be confirmed in due course.

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

One of the economic investments that we do not want to see in Angus and Perthshire Glens, or anywhere else in Scotland, is foreign multinationals buying up farms because farmers have given up under the weight of the taxes introduced by this Government. This would destroy local supply chains and make larger farms that are less responsive to consumer demand. What has the Chancellor seen in her impact assessment of the agricultural property relief changes to allay those fears?

[Rachel Reeves]

One of the current challenges, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is that agricultural property relief is often used for tax avoidance. People are buying farmland not because they are family farmers but because they do not want to pay any inheritance tax. That is why we are reforming the system to bring in much-needed money to fund our public services, and to have a fair system with a 50% discount to inheritance tax paid on agricultural property and a 10-year period to pay that inheritance tax, interest free.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Dave Doogan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

In her Budget statement on 30 October, the Chancellor set out the difficult decisions that we as a Government have been prepared to make on welfare, spending and tax. Those decisions were not just difficult but necessary, given the fiscal irresponsibility and economic mismanagement that had become hallmarks of the previous Government. We inherited a mess, so those decisions were needed to fix the public finances, fund the NHS and other public services and deliver economic stability. We have been determined to take those decisions while protecting working people. That is why our Budget made no changes to income tax, the rate of VAT, or the amount of national insurance that working people pay. As a result of our Budget, people will not see a penny more tax on their payslips.

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

Is the Minister seriously suggesting that, with the best brains in the Treasury on hand, he does not understand that it is a moot point whether someone has a higher national insurance contribution in their payslip, or whether their wages are suppressed and the job that they were going for is not there anymore, because the employer cannot afford to increase their payroll due to this national insurance increase?

[James Murray]

We recognise that we are asking businesses to contribute more, and that this will have impacts, but it will be up to individual businesses to decide how to respond to these changes. The one thing that we know for certain is that if we had chosen a different path—if we had followed the previous Government and increased income tax or national insurance—that would have led to a tax on people’s payslips. It would have led to the amount of money in people’s pockets going down, which would have broken our manifesto promise.

--- Later in debate ---

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

What is the café owner, the hotelier, the mobile mechanic, the gardener, the florist and—dare I even say it?—the farmer, if not an ordinary working person? The Government’ s false prospectus and their dubious cleavage between who is and who is not an ordinary working person is the snake oil that will be their undoing sooner rather than later. I also inform Treasury Ministers, which I really should not have to do, that when they refer to a business consisting of four or five people, they are referring to a microbusiness, not a small business. One would really expect the Treasury to be able to make such a distinction.

The Scottish Government pointed out last week that Labour’s raid on national insurance would leave a shortfall of at least £200 million in Scottish public sector finances. Labour’s own figures show that the cost to Scotland of the national insurance increase will be over £500 million, including a cost of £191 million to Scotland’s NHS, and that is corroborated by the Fraser of Allander Institute, which has estimated that the Scottish Government will be left with a £500 million shortfall as a result of these taxes. In my constituency, Perth and Kinross council is facing a £5.4 million recurring pressure, while Angus council faces a £5 million pound pressure. When indirect employees such as those in childcare settings, general practices, colleges or social care are included, the figure in Scotland rises to £750 million pounds, for which we have been offered £300 million in compensation. It is absolutely scandalous. In Scotland, which has more top universities per head of population than any other nation in the world, the university sector is under tremendous pressure. And what of the private sector? The bill for Scotland—the gross quantum by which it will be penalised by this fiscal misadventure—is £2 billion, and the private sector is on the hook for £1.25 billion of that, which is entirely unacceptable.

While we are talking about what is happening to Scotland, wouldn’t it have been nice if some of the Scottish Labour MPs had turned up for the debate to speak up for their constituents? [Interruption.] Perhaps one who was not a parliamentary private secretary, and did not have to be here.

About 600,000 people in Scotland are employed in the public sector, making up 22% of the workforce, as opposed to about 17% in the UK as a whole. That means that exposure in Scotland is even greater. The Fraser of Allander Institute has said that the UK Government appear to be applying Barnett consequentials to the public sector compensation for increased NICs, although public sector employees are not uniformly distributed between Scotland and rest of the UK. It notes:

“The UK Government has set aside £4.7 billion to compensate public sector employers”,

although the institute says that “it remains unclear” how they have done that. It says that

“The size of the Scottish devolved public sector is 547,000, which is 9.2% of all public sector employment in the UK”.

That is a consequence of Scotland’s geography, and of political decisions that have been made in Scotland. I am not shying away from that; far from it. I am proud of it.

The Westminster Government have increased the Scottish block grant for 2025-26 by £3.4 billion, which comes with a £2 billion clawback. That is devolution in a nutshell. The increase in national insurance will prove disastrous for wages, public services, businesses and growth in Scotland. Ahead of Scotland’s Budget tomorrow, it is vital for the UK Government to reconsider their approach and fully fund this Labour national insurance raid.

The OBR has said that it believes most of the increase in national insurance will be passed on to workers and consumers in the form of lower wages and higher prices—you do not need to be an economic wizard to work that out—and the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned that the move will increase the cost of employing a worker in the bottom fifth of earners by 4%, compared with around 1.5% for workers in the top fifth of earners. As such, it is clear that this intervention will hit lower-paid workers worst and increase the risk of fewer jobs being available in the marketplace.

Business owners have said that they are now rethinking expansion plans for 2025 or delaying planned investments. In a joint letter earlier this month, 81 of the biggest retail names in the UK warned the Chancellor that her Budget

“will make job losses inevitable, and higher prices a certainty.”

The chief executive officers of Sainsbury’s, Asda and BT are all talking about rises in their operating costs, which will have to be funded somewhere, most likely through price rises.

The British Medical Association has described the national insurance increase as an

“existential threat to NHS General Practice”.

GPs are already struggling with a recruitment crisis and staff shortages at a time of growing demand and increasing pressures, and a survey of care home providers in Scotland found that nearly half of them are noting the very real possibility of service closure as a result of the increase in national insurance. Similarly, charities are negatively affected.

This measure is dysfunctional in a literal sense. It will not deliver what the Government hope; rather, as we all know and the Government should know, it will reduce growth, suppress wages, cost jobs, lower recruitment, increase inflation and lower living standards. What kind of Government would carry out such a calamitous act of economic self-harm? Well, we know: this kind of Government. I look forward to voting against this Bill tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Ferguson]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is always worth reminding Members of all shades and stripes of the existence of the coalition Government. Quite often I hear the Liberal Democrats talk about 14 years of terrible decisions, but I am afraid that they have to own five of those years.

We have not heard the Opposition thank this Government for increasing the minimum wage—the words are “thank you”, by the way—to £12.21 an hour. As we have seen, when we increase the minimum wage and put more money in the pockets of working people of all stripes, we see more money spent on high streets and in local communities, and more thriving local businesses. I have been meeting local businesses recently, including Prism Coffee in Saltwell park—it does an excellent flat white, by the way—the Rare Drop in Low Fell, which has an absolutely fantastic selection of beers and cheeses, and my next-door neighbour, the owner of Creations and Alterations, who can do some work on your suit.

But what people in Low Fell have been speaking to me about recently is crime—retail crime and crime on our high streets—and we are going to tackle that by raising money and spending more on the police so that they can be not only a visible presence in our communities but solve crimes. For too long, break-ins have been ignored, and that is a fundamental problem for businesses. If they are having to spend £1,400 on getting shutters for their shop on the high street, that is a fundamental hit to their bottom line. If they are having the back door of their business kicked in every night of the week, whether money is stolen or not, that it is pushing up their insurance premiums and it is a hit to their bottom line. How do we tackle that? With more police on the streets, and we will fund that with this national insurance increase.

[Dave Doogan]

The Government will receive £10 billion from this intervention in the tax regime. How many times are they going to spend it?

[Mark Ferguson]

I thank the hon. Member for his point. This is what is known as a balanced Budget, and we on this side of the House are going to do something remarkable. The amount of money that we raise will match the amount of money that we spend. I know that might seem alien to some of those on the Opposition Benches, but that is what we are going to do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Davies]

Absolutely. We all heard what the Chancellor said at the Confederation of British Industry conference. It is remarkable that the Prime Minister will not back up her words, and even more remarkable that the Chancellor herself would not back up her words today at Treasury questions.

The British people see the Bill for what it is: the biggest broken promise of them all, and there are plenty to choose from. It is a good job the Chancellor has experience on a complaints desk, because, quite frankly, there are quite a lot coming in at the moment—not least from the business community, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) highlighted so well in his speech. Before the election, the Chancellor embarked on what she referred to as the “smoked salmon offensive” with British business; now the election is over, she has dropped the smoked salmon and is focusing on just being offensive.

Today’s Bill will introduce tax rises on working people in business that were never declared before the election. It is a double whammy, as the Federation of Small Businesses has said in Lincolnshire: it introduces not just the rate rise, but a reduction in the threshold. This tax is the only major tax that is paid exclusively by working people. It is a £25 billion tax rise on jobs. The OBR makes it clear that by 2027, 76% of the total cost of this tax increase will be passed on to working people through lower wages and higher prices, as the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) said in what I thought was a very thoughtful speech for the SNP.

As I said at Treasury questions this morning, the OBR says this is a tax on working people; the IFS says this is a tax on working people; even the Resolution Foundation says this is a tax on working people. By anyone’s measure—be in no doubt—this is a manifesto breach the public will not forget. That is clear.

What is not so clear any more is what this Labour party stands for. The Budget was an attack not just on working people, but on the very lowest paid working people, according to the IFS. This is a fundamentally regressive policy, leaving many out in the cold and giving businesses no choice but to freeze hiring and freeze wages. It will hit others, too. It will hit the doctors and the nurses working in general practice and social care, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) set out in his speech. It will hit charities and voluntary organisations, with Marie Curie expecting that it will cost the charity £3 million next year alone—all part of a £1.4 billion bombshell to hit all charities next year. It will hit hospices, homeless support groups and disability charities, which are all warning they face reducing headcount and limiting services. This is not what the British people voted for.

[Dave Doogan]

Is the hon. Gentleman concerned, as many of my colleagues are, that the Government will not give the full details on compensation for the non-core public sector activities that are the lifeblood of the NHS because, if they gave them the compensation that they need, the net benefit from the tax would be so risibly small as to demonstrate that it is utterly pointless and a concoction that could come only from a dysfunctional Treasury like this one?

[Gareth Davies]

There is really nothing to add to that. The hon. Gentleman made that point in his speech and at Treasury questions—it is a very important point.

In just six months, we have hit the highest tax burden in history. Debt is up, with debt interest payments above £100 billion—for the first time ever—in every year of the forecast. Today’s Bill will result in lower wages, higher prices and a tougher employment market. I urge this Government to reverse course, but I will not hold my breath. Instead, I think I can predict what the Minister is going to say. She is going to say three things when she stands up to speak. First, she is going to try to blame the Conservative party—blaming everybody else for this clear political choice. She will not explain the £8 billion on GB Energy—an energy company that will not actually reduce bills or produce any energy—or the £10 billion on public pay splurges that come with no reform on productivity, or £7 billion on rebranding the national infrastructure bank. Perhaps if the Government dropped those pet projects—which will not actually grow the economy—they would have a little more money and would not have to screw with small businesses and make people unemployed.

Secondly, the Minister will forget that she is in government and that I am in opposition. She will ask me what my party would do instead. To that, I simply say that we would fund the NHS well, but we would also reform it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

It is an honour to close the debate on behalf of the Government. When the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) loses his seat, he can work as my speechwriter, because he is right that I am going to say all the things he said, but I will come on to that soon.

Let me start by thanking hon. Members for their contributions to the debate. There were some powerful speeches, including from my hon. Friends the Members for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson), for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards), for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson), for Dartford (Jim Dickson), for Welwyn Hatfield (Andrew Lewin), for East Thanet (Ms Billington), for Rochdale (Paul Waugh), for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), for Basingstoke (Luke Murphy) and for Reading West and Mid Berkshire (Olivia Bailey). .

Before I come to the specific points raised in this debate, I want to reiterate the purpose of the Bill. Our priority in the Bill is to restore stability to our economy, repair the public finances to fix our economy, and support long-term economic growth. The Chancellor recognised that to do that, the Government needed to make difficult decisions. That is why under the measures in the Bill, employers are being asked to contribute more. First, the Bill provides for a rise in the rate of employer secondary class 1 national insurance contributions from 13.8% to 15%. Secondly, it provides for a decrease in the secondary threshold for employers from £9,000 per employee to £5,000. Thirdly, it provides for changes to the employment allowance, to increase it from £5,000 to £10,500, and removes the £100,000 eligibility cap, so that the vast majority of employers benefit.

The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) asked at the start of the debate where the extra money raised will go. Let me remind him that the Government uncovered a challenging fiscal and spending inheritance with £22 million of in-year pressure on public finances. We have taken difficult but necessary decisions to fix the foundations of our economy and to fix public services. The Budget provided additional day-to-day funding to stabilise and support public services. Day-to-day funding will now grow at an average of 3.3% in real terms over this year and next, compared to 0.2% under the last Government’s plans.

[Dave Doogan]

A £200 million black hole in the Scottish Government’s core finances, rising to £450 million when partner agencies are included—what kind of stability does the Minister think that will bring to public services in Scotland?

[Tulip Siddiq]

If the hon. Gentleman is patient and listens carefully to my speech, I will come on to the Scottish Government, so he does not need to worry.

The increase in employment NICs raises revenues for the NHS and increases funding for contributory benefits such as the state pension, easing wider pressures on public finances. It is part of the Government’s announcement of an additional £22.6 billion of day-to-day spending over two years for the Department of Health and Social Care, including the NHS.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq]

If you will forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I feel that a lettuce would have better judgment.

I turn to the devolved Governments. The Government will provide Departments and other public sector employers with support for additional ER NICs costs only. The funding will be allocated to Departments, with the Barnett formula applying in the usual way. The overall outcome of the Barnett formula is that all the devolved Governments will receive at least 20% more funding per person than the equivalent UK Government spending in the rest of the UK. The Scottish Government will receive £47.7 billion in 2025-26, including an additional £3.4 billion through the operation of the Barnett formula. The Welsh Government will receive £21 billion in 2025-26, including an additional £1.7 billion through the operation of the Barnett formula.

[Dave Doogan]

The Minister is being very generous in taking a second intervention from me. I realise that the bar for credibility in the Treasury is very low right now, but she hoots and toots about the level of the block grant for the Scottish Government. In what universe does the block grant go down year on year? Of course it is higher than in previous years. Has she got the faintest idea how it works?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I do have the faintest idea how it works, which is why I am on this side of the House and the hon. Gentleman is on that side. That is why I am a Treasury Minister and he is not, and probably never will be.

The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) spoke about hospitality. Without any Government intervention, retail, hospitality and leisure relief would have ended entirely in April 2025, creating a cliff edge for business. [Interruption.] I know the truth hurts, which is why the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) is chuntering from the Opposition Front Bench. Our Government have decided to offer a 40% discount to RHL properties by introducing a cash cap of £110,000 per business in 2025-26, and we have frozen the small business multiplier. This package is worth over £1.6 billion in 2025-26 and is aimed at supporting the most vulnerable businesses, ensuring that over 250,000 RHL properties receive the full 40% support.

Finance Bill

Dave Doogan Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I have already given way to the right hon. Gentleman, so I will make some progress.

Within the policy, provision for pupils with special educational needs is an important matter that a several right hon. and hon. Members have raised with me. The Government recognise the importance of that too, and I am glad to confirm that where pupils have special educational needs that can only be met in private schools, as determined by an education, health and care plan in England or its equivalent in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, local authorities and devolved Governments that fund those places will be compensated for the VAT they are charged on those pupils’ fees.

Fourthly, this Government are delivering on the manifesto commitments to increase the energy profits levy by three percentage points, from 35% to 38%, and to extend the period over which the levy applies by one year. The Government are also ending unjustifiably generous allowances by removing the levy’s core investment allowance, which was unique to oil and gas taxation and not available to any other sector of the economy. We are, however, providing stability within other features of the system, by maintaining the level of tax relief available for decarbonisation investment, by setting the rate of the allowance at 66% and by maintaining the availability of 100% first-year allowances.

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

The Minister is defending the changes that he is making to the fiscal regime as it relates to the North sea and the production of oil and gas. Can he identify another oil and gas-producing nation that taxes its industry higher than the United Kingdom does?

[James Murray]

We know that other countries tax in different ways. Norway has a high headline rate, although it has a different set of structures of allowances and so on. It is important for us that we calibrate the headline rate and the allowances in the right way. That is why we have taken the measured decision to increase the rate as I described, to remove the investment allowance but at the same time to retain the 100% first-year allowances and the level of relief available for decarbonisation investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend makes an important and valid point. As he says, Labour is now claiming that there will be no incidence of this tax increase on working people, although it seems to have a problem defining exactly what a working person is. None the less, try telling that to those people who will see their wages depressed as a consequence of this measure. Try telling that to the 50,000 full-time equivalents who the OBR says will lose their jobs as a consequence of this measure. Try telling that to the young people up and down our country who, because it is not just an increase in the rate but also an approximate halving of the threshold, will be disproportionately affected.

Labour also reassured farmers. The then shadow Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—the now Secretary of State—reassured farmers. He went to the National Farmers Union and said that nothing would be done on inheritance tax and the annual percentage rate. And on that basis, the NFU told its members that, at least on that measure, there was nothing to fear from a future Labour Government. How wrong it was. Only last week, we saw, tens of thousands of farmers, in their dignified way, coming up to the very gates of our democracy to ask a simple question of the Labour Government: “Why did you lie to us?” That is the nub of it. The measure will see the break-up of our farms and it will do nothing for food security.

[Dave Doogan]

Does the shadow Minister agree that the Government could not conceivably have been so ignorant about British agriculture that they did not know that inheriting the family farm is no form of enrichment whatsoever? So introducing this change to APR is just pure bad government.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It demonstrates that this Government do not understand farming and do not understand the countryside. There are 100 Labour Members who represent rural constituencies. I will not guess how many there will be after the next general election, but some number fewer than 100, I suspect.

Perhaps the cruellest deception of all was of our pensioners, who were reassured that there would not be any means-testing of the winter fuel payment, yet what happened? 10 million pensioners are to face a cut. Before somebody on the Government Benches stands up and tells us that some of those pensioners can afford it, I say that many of them simply cannot. Of those under the poverty line, two thirds will actually lose these benefits.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a great pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to the Bill. I would have thought it would be a pleasure enjoyed by many more people on the Government Benches. Last time I checked—it has been a while since I was at university—it was quite important to have constituents’ views heard on the Finance Bill and the Budget. It is scandalous how quiet the Government Benches are. We will have in the order of eight Labour speeches today, which is just unbelievable. If one were a Unionist, and I am not—[Interruption.] Was that an intervention? No, it was not. If I were, this would be an opportunity. The Government had an opportunity, with the mandate they had, to create a Budget for change, but this Budget will leave millions worse off.

The Budget last month had some moments of cheer in it, and I will touch on them now because it will not take long. There is scope within the Finance Bill for increased investment, which the SNP has called for. There is scope within the Budget for increased funding for the NHS all across the United Kingdom; again, the SNP has called for that, and it is welcome to see. Tackling the most elite of all the elites, the non-doms, is also welcome, as is the ambition to tackle the scourge of vapes.

Thereafter, though, we get into serious difficulty. I will start with the Bill’s clauses 15 to 18, a further and final attack on North sea oil and gas, Scotland’s natural endowment. The UK has drawn hundreds of billions of pounds from the North sea over the course of my lifetime, the past 50 years. It is almost as though the UK is addicted to it—so much so that it is going to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. The Government are hiking taxes, eroding allowances and driving investment from the North sea, including precisely the businesses that we need to drive the just transition to net zero in the places where we need them. What other state would attack one of its own industries in this way? It beggars belief. It will come home to roost in spades, and it will not shift the dial one bit towards the net zero future that we are trying to get to. The oil and gas that is being displaced from the Scottish sector by this Government’s ineptitude will be replaced by oil and gas from other jurisdictions, where the tax will be paid and where, doubtless, human rights are very much worse.

Clause 61 contains the universally detested provisions on agricultural property relief. The way in which this Government have manipulated the figures to justify this mendacious attack on one of the most noble professions anywhere in the world, and certainly across these islands, is simply unbelievable, as is the idea that 70% of farms will not be affected by these provisions. The fact that the Government habitually quote a circumstance in which two parents bequeath a farm at the same time—which almost never happens—shows that they themselves know that they are on shaky ground. If the problem is non-farming enterprises investing in the purchase of agricultural land in tax-efficient ways, tax that. That is what the Government should have had the bravery to do. There is no material enrichment from inheriting the family farm—other Members have talked today about the return on capital employed in farming being miserably low. It is as much a vocation as it is an employment, and we should never forget that the product of what farmers do feeds us all. It is ridiculous, single-minded, myopic nonsense from another dysfunctional, fiscally incompetent Labour Government who would not know which way up was if somebody did not point it out to them.

Because farms are a business, we can add the imposition across the economy of the increase in employer’s national insurance charges. If that were not enough, the Government have stuck the boot in on four-door pick-ups, turning them into family cars for taxation purposes. Pick-ups are the backbone of the agricultural economy, but it seems that nothing is off limits for this Labour Government when it comes to sticking the boot into agriculture. What Government seriously take on the people who produce our food? I remind the Government—I am guessing, but I am pretty certain that they will not know—that malting barley is the prime ingredient in the Scotch whisky industry, which again produces billions for the UK Exchequer.

[Harriet Cross]

On the topic of the Scotch whisky industry, does the hon. Member agree that increasing the levy by 3.65%, so that a bottle of whisky now has £12 of tax added before it is even out of the door, is another attack on one of Scotland’s main industries?

[Dave Doogan]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member. That is absolutely right, and I am going to touch on that topic a little later.

We see in clause 75 that the rates of landfill tax are going up by 25%. I wonder what discussions Government Ministers have had with local authorities on the impact of this increase. It would be just like this Government to not have put two and two together and realised that it will be a significant upward pressure on costs for councils.

Clause 78 deals with high-sugar drinks. A public health emergency exists in this country—in this state—and the Government are proposing to increase the tax on high-sugar drinks from 24p per litre to £2.59 per 10 litres. That is scarcely an increase at all. A tax of 24p per litre is going up to 25.9p per litre, an increase of 1.9p per litre. We do not sell sugary drinks in litres, we sell them in 330 ml cans, so that is an increase of 0.6p per can. Are the Government kidding? It is a public health emergency—the clue is in the title. Have they got no ambition at all?

This Bill, and the Budget that led up to it, will impose billions of pounds of tax rises and cuts that will hit working Scots in the pocket. We see our old folk freezing in their houses as a result of this Bill and the Budget that underpins it. As a result of the Bill, young people will be chasing fewer and fewer jobs with lower and lower wages. The CBI said this week that the tax rises in the Budget had sent businesses into “crisis containment” and “damage control”, because this Chancellor’s £40 billion raid on businesses is the single biggest tax increase since Norman Lamont’s in 1993. The Chancellor’s decisions hinge on 2% departmental efficiencies that will never ever be realised—we know this because it has never ever been done—so further cuts are coming down on top of these taxes.

This is pure fiscal poison for communities and businesses across these islands. The Government are inflicting the same pain on the Northern hotel in Brechin, Perthshire Timber and Montrose port as they are inflicting on Nissan and Tesco. I am not implying that it is fine for big business and bad for small business; this is a “one size fits nobody” Finance Bill, and the Budget that goes along with it is the same. The clawback that they are applying to the devolved nations, which the Exchequer Secretary would not speak about earlier, does not come close to meeting the cost of the national insurance increase. There is £300 million of compensation for the Scottish Government, who are facing a £750 million exposure, and that is the nature of what this Government are doing. What of the reward for this fiscal pain? Lower growth in the economy, lower profits, increased debt, lower investment, lower wages, falling output, capital flight and the risk of default as the ultimate conclusion. It is almost as though the Chancellor has forgotten that her job is to run the economy, not ruin the economy.

This would be a matter for separate debate—I know that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not want to test your patience—but the raid on employer’s national insurance will devastate small businesses, charities and the care sector. It will cost Scottish public services—the public sector with direct employees in Scotland— £600 million, and when we include the partner agencies working with our NHS and our care services, that figure will be very much higher. Supermarkets and other retailers have also said that the inevitable result of the Chancellor’s changes will be higher prices for consumers. The Government make great play about not raising taxes, but it amounts to the same thing when wages are suppressed and prices are going up.

As the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) mentioned, the duty on Scotch whisky has been hiked in this Bill, which the industry has called an “indefensible tax grab”. This was despite Labour’s leader in Scotland—for Labour Members’ interest, he is a gentleman called Anas Sarwar—claiming that he spoke to the Chancellor about it. I would be very interested to know about that conversation, but perhaps it was: “Is it okay if I hike up duties, Anas?” with the reply, “Yes, no bother, Chancellor. You carry on.”

One of the glaring omissions in the Bill is any provision for the WASPI women. It is of course welcome that the Budget will address the great impositions put on people affected by the infected blood scandal and on postmasters. However, those were caused by the Post Office, or the NHS and others, whereas the WASPI women issue was caused by the UK Government. That great tragedy was caused by the Government, yet it is the one that is not addressed in this Bill or in the broader Budget.

It is therefore little wonder that polling in Scotland last week showed that 75% of Scots feel they are going to be worse off, or certainly no better off, as a result of the Budget. Since the Chancellor delivered her Budget, supermarkets, farms, pubs and telecom providers have all warned that these decisions will be inflationary.

[Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member think it was fiscally responsible for the SNP Finance Secretary to have used all of the £460 million from offshore wind? He has spoken a lot about this Government, but does he think that that was appropriate?

[Dave Doogan]

To my great regret, I am not entirely sure what the hon. Member is talking about. If she would like, I am very happy to catch up with her afterwards. We can find out exactly what is concerning her, and I will make sure she has all the facts she needs.

Just when mortgage payers thought things were going to stabilise and that the worst of the last UK Government’s fiscal incompetence was over, the major banks have been talking since the Budget about an increase in the rates they are able to offer.

Many hon. Members have talked about what was said before the election, and what has come to pass after it, but during the election the Prime Minister promised that there would be a £300 reduction in energy prices. We have seen that that is not the case, and that energy prices are £149 higher and will go up by £21 in January. There is a £470 honesty tax on energy bills across the United Kingdom as a result of what people were told was going to happen before the election, and what has come to pass at the hands of this Labour Government.

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman talks about honesty. It sounds like he has read our manifesto, so did we say that we would reduce energy prices by November 2024? Did we say that we would raise the minimum wage, and did we do it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

I am pleased with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I can only assume he was a used car salesman in a previous life. We need to read the small print from Labour: “We will reduce your energy bill by £300. Terms and conditions apply.” Honestly, you couldn’t make it up—[Interruption.] I think they are probably speaking to the hon. Gentleman, rather than me, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Things do not end with the honesty tax I mentioned. This is a serious point, because 900,000 pensioners in Scotland will be stripped of their winter fuel payment in the coldest part of these islands, without so much as a by your leave to the Scottish Government—

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dave Doogan]

No, I will not—we have touched on a number of issues there. In closing, earnings are set to grow by just 1.6% in real terms over this Parliament as a result of the Bill and the Budget that goes with it, and that will extend the UK’s long pay stagnation. The Resolution Foundation has found that

“By 2028, average weekly earnings are set to be just £13 higher than they were in 2008.”

Furthermore, the Institute for Fiscal Studies states:

“Labour’s spending plans after 2025-26 are unlikely to survive contact with reality”

Those are—[Interruption.] I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) because he has goaded me.

[Dr Arthur]

The Government have taken the difficult decision to means-test the winter fuel allowance and protect the poorest pensioners, but my understanding is that that is a devolved power in Scotland. The Scottish Government could have made the decision to use the resources they have, perhaps from wind as was discussed, to extend the allowance to more pensioners in Scotland, but they did not. They decided to enforce that cut in Scotland when they could have taken a different path, particularly given the additional uplift of money that has come from this Budget.

[Dave Doogan]

I do not know the hon. Gentleman. I have never set eyes on him, but I will make the assumption that he is a Scottish Labour MP. I do not know who he is, because he has only just appeared in the Chamber, despite the fact that we are two and a half hours into the debate—[Interruption.] We have heard a lot from the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) as well. The hon. Gentleman asks me what the Scottish Government will do about the winter fuel payment, so let me tell him for the next time he is an apologist for the United Kingdom. The Labour Government devolved control over the winter fuel payment, and then effectively took the budget away by cutting it for pensioners elsewhere in the United Kingdom. That is the trap of devolution. He does not want to see it, but I can see it fine. I do not know it, so I do not know how he knows what the Scottish Government will do regarding the winter fuel payment, and what targeted support they will provide in the winter ahead. One thing for sure, however, is that whoever in Scotland is standing up for pensioners, it certainly will not be the Labour party.

In closing, it is no surprise that the Bill and the Budget hold nothing but pain for communities, services and business in Scotland. Labour takes Scotland for granted. The Labour Government even ignore representations from their Westminster apologists with Scottish constituencies who sit on their own Benches. This is another tragic Budget for Scotland, and another push factor inexorably moving us closer to independence—at least the Budget is good for one thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

The Budget that was presented to the House will turn the page on what has been a chaotic few years under the last Government. It is also an opportunity for my constituents to welcome a Budget that demonstrates a responsible Government who will take tight fiscal rules seriously. The truth is that economic growth comes when there is financial stability, and the first step towards financial stability is to ensure that the books are balanced.

This Budget protects working people from higher taxes in their payslips and provides an increase in the national minimum wage, which my constituents will absolutely benefit from. It speaks volumes that the majority of the time spent by Opposition Members has focused on a subsidy that used to exist for private schools and now does not because this Government are ensuring that we invest in the state sector.

[Dave Doogan]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Nesil Caliskan]

No. I can tell those Members that when additional money is spent on the state sector, it improves the life chances and opportunities of my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

Apache has announced that it is set to pull out of the North sea basin. How does the hon. Lady think that announcement relates to the fiscal decisions of this Government? Does she think that it is inextricably linked to this Government’s ambitions for North sea oil and gas, and their failure to fully understand how the industry works?

[Harriet Cross]

The fact that Apache’s announcement came within a week of the Budget speaks for itself when it comes to the question of the final straw that broke the camel’s back.

As I was saying, the energy profits levy has the greatest impact on our local, home-grown businesses. It is turning the lights off in the very businesses that we should be supporting and championing. By removing investment allowances, the Government are forcing companies to scale back their North sea projects, thereby increasing our reliance on expensive imported energy from overseas.

North-east Scotland is already leading the charge on renewable energy. We have hydrogen projects in development, wind farms off our shores, and expertise that could and should position us as a global leader on clean, renewable energy technologies. However, a rushed, ill-thought-out transition—to which the EPL contributes—will undermine our efforts. The skills of our oil and gas sector are precisely what we need in order to deliver a sustainable transition. The companies that will be penalised by this levy are the ones that we need to invest in green technologies. Just yesterday I met developers of floating offshore wind farms, and I asked them about the EPL. They hope that one of their projects will involve collaboration with an oil and gas field; the floating wind farm will help to decarbonise the rig, and in return, the oil and gas producer will help to fund the cabling back to shore. However, now they fear that the increasing and extended EPL will jeopardise the oil and gas company’s ability and willingness to invest.

This Labour Government are turning what was a windfall tax into a permanent feature of our tax system, creating long-term uncertainty that will drive investment away from north-east Scotland. The energy profits levy is a blunt instrument, not a balanced strategy. The Government must listen to industry experts, local businesses, and communities like mine in Gordon and Buchan. We need a competitive, open business environment that attracts investment and will support our energy transition, while protecting jobs and supply chains and securing our energy supplies. The nation’s energy security depends on it.

[Kanishka Narayan (Vale of Glamorgan) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak while you are in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. It was also a pleasure to hear the brilliant maiden speech from my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett). We are colleagues and partners in crime in the cause of technology. I know that she has a glittering career in front of her, and I look forward to witnessing it.

In view of the instruction from your predecessor in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I studiously read the Budget briefing from the House of Commons Library, which explained the history of the Finance Bill. Broadly, that history commends this country’s stability and its financial institutions—broadly, but with one great blip. Let me start by recognising the context of the Bill: the wreckage from which we emerge—the wreckage of the “growth plan”, as the Conservatives called it under their Prime Minister Liz Truss. The briefing, for which I thank the Library’s staff, tells us that not setting out the prospective flow of a Finance Bill from that was a total aberration. From the wreckage, however, has come the return of stability.

In fairness, I recognise that at the time, the present shadow Chancellor—the right hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride)—called the party leader out. He said that she was “flying blind”, and others were following her blindly. It seems that blind flight is contagious on the Opposition Benches today. The right hon. Gentleman talks about opposing, about being the party of “no” rather than the party of government. He did not tell us how he would fund public services; he did not tell us what taxes he would raise if he opposed all of ours. I am conscious that he also once called the pension triple lock “unsustainable”. This is not someone to be trusted with government or with opposition.

I note that the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) has just left the Chamber, having said that he was not interested in choosing. He stands for the 100%. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) said, to govern is to choose. To avoid choice is to play the fantasy politics of opposition, and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has found the warm Benches opposite.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Gentleman says that the Tories have no plan for public services. I accept that the Labour Government do have a plan, but it is completely unbelievable, so where does that leave us?

[Kanishka Narayan]

May I recognise, with warm comfort, the traditional place of the Scottish nationalists as total enablers of Conservative Governments? The hon. Gentleman talks about fiscal credibility. May I point out the absolute wreckage of the Scottish Government, who have wasted almost half a billion pounds of offshore wind proceeds on day-to-day spending because of their fiscal mismanagement? If he is taking tutorials alongside the Conservative party, may I ask him to invite his colleagues in Scotland to them? Those will serve them very efficiently.

From my experience of the City of London, and of investing in this country and abroad, the broad lesson I have learned is that finance is always contingent, but the fundamentals matter. For that reason, the Bill has to be seen in the context of what it enables. Where the Conservatives treated the working people of this country as their cash machines, we are protecting payslips. Where they did not support healthcare in this country and wrecked the waiting list system, as I experienced growing up in this country, we are supporting the NHS. Where they slashed public investment and took cowardly decisions across their Finance Bills, we are investing in our future.

I want to mention a proposal in the Bill that is close to my heart: the relief on draught duty, which will affect the Lamb and Flag in Wick, the Three Golden Cups in Southerndown and, closest to my heart, Finnegans on Barry Island. When the “Gavin and Stacey” Christmas special is shown, I will make sure to make the most of the draught duty relief—particularly at Finnegans, but across the Vale of Glamorgan.

Let me return to the choice at the heart of this Bill. As the Treasury’s distributional analysis shows, the overall context of what we have done, both in the Bill and more broadly, is that 90% of households in this country will be better off. That is the amazing distributional context, after 14 years of what we experienced under the Conservative party.

What a daffodil-laden Budget we have! The Bill offers the biggest ever budget settlement for Wales; it means £1.7 billion for Welsh public services. Some 70,000 minimum-wage workers in Wales will be better off. There is £100 million for our coal and steel communities, and a timely £25 million of support for coal tips. For the daffodil-laden Budget and the Bill that undergirds it, I am very grateful to the Chancellor.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

It is good to have an explanation of how to do my job from one of the Conservative Members who crashed our economy. Some £63.5 billion of investment into the UK was announced at our international investment summit—investment in life sciences, investment in data centres and digital, investment in clean energy—because businesses have confidence that this Government are bringing stability back to our economy and working with businesses to seize the opportunities. I am really excited about doing that in all parts of our country and working with business to do so.

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

Can the Chancellor tell us, to the nearest £10 billion, how much extra would be available for long-term investment were it not for the fire sale of UK Government bonds by the Bank of England, costing the taxpayer dearly?

[Rachel Reeves]

I started my career as an economist at the Bank of England, and unlike Conservative Members, I think it is incredibly important to recognise the independence of our economic institutions, including the Bank of England and, indeed, the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Fiscal Rules

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

My hon. Friend points rightly to the £22 billion black hole that we are having to clear up after the Tory party. In the Budget on Wednesday, the Chancellor will set out how we are resetting public finances and fixing the foundations, so that we can get on and deliver our manifesto.

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

In outline terms, we welcome what the Government are seeking to do. It is important to raise the ability to generate capital infrastructure investment. Scotland invests 42% more than the UK average, and the UK average is 50% lower than the OECD average. That issue is a priority, but the Government’s move will fall on stony ground if on Wednesday the Chancellor continues with her priority to not lift people out of poverty and to go by exception after small businesses that take an income from that business by raising the cost of employment. With the four signal capital investment projects all being in England, I am moved to ask: what’s in this for Scotland?

[Darren Jones]

I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman tell the House that he welcomes the positive change that this Labour Government in Westminster are delivering to the Scottish people. I agree with him. On early announcements, I can point to GB Energy and the huge commitments we have made on energy infrastructure, which we know will be important to the Scottish people. We absolutely recognise that the Scottish economy has a huge contribution to make to the whole economy of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we look forward to working with the Scottish people to make that a reality.

Winter Fuel Payment

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

We are under no illusions. We know it will be a slow and difficult process when the damage goes so deep, but we are determined to fix the foundations of our country so that, on the bedrock of financial stability and fiscal responsibility, we can get our economy growing after 14 years under the Conservatives.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way on the point about fiscal responsibility. I am not sure of the morality of trying to balance this country’s fiscal books on the backs of pensioners. He referenced the manifesto on which the Labour party stood at the election. “No austerity under Labour” was said in Scotland, so what should the 37 Scottish Labour MPs do in this vote? Should they bow down to the Chancellor, or should they stand up for their Scottish constituents?

[James Murray]

Every Labour Member was elected on a promise to restore economic stability and fiscal responsibility to our country, and it is on that basis that we will get the economy growing to make people across the country better off and to put our public services on a sustainable footing. I remind the hon. Gentleman that winter heating assistance is a devolved matter in Scotland. The Scottish Government intend to legislate to introduce a means-tested payment this winter which is equivalent to the winter fuel payment in England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Some 19,500 pensioners in Angus and Perthshire Glens will be stripped of their winter fuel payment by this Labour Government. I cannot tell the House how cold it gets in Angus and Perthshire Glens in wintertime, but if anyone on the Labour Front Bench wants to come and sit in my garage on a January day, I will turn the heating off in the whole property and they can see what it will be like for some pensioners in my constituency.

I will not be supporting this measure because it is incompetent. It is incompetent operationally, because it does not take cognisance of co-morbidities in already frail people, or of what will happen to those people as they budget to try to accommodate this unnecessary cut to their income. It is fiscally incompetent, because it does not take cognisance of whole-system costs—people presenting at hospital or going into care prematurely because they cannot stay at home, because of what they do to try to make ends meet. It does not take account of the cost to the supposed saving of £1.5 billion once pension credit is taken up fully, rendering the saving meaningless. It is morally incompetent because, as we have heard from professionals in the Chamber, as a result of this decision, people will die.

Moreover, this measure was not in the Labour party manifesto, which is reprehensible, and it ignores the cultural sensitivities of older people, many of whom find asking for help anathema; they will never do it, no matter how entitled they are. I very much hope that when the Minister sums up the debate, she will estimate how many of the 209 extra Labour MPs in this House, including 37 in Scotland, would be here if cutting the winter fuel payment had been on the face of their manifesto. It would be very many fewer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I said I will make some progress, thank you.

Many hon. Members, both on the Government side and on the Opposition Benches, including my hon. Friend the Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang) and the hon. Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), spoke about the work they are doing to encourage pensioners in their own constituencies to apply for pension credit to get the support they need.

I want to start by saying some more about the principles that underlie the Government’s approach to means-testing winter fuel payments. First, most help should be targeted to those who most need it. Secondly, significant support for all pensioners will come around via the triple lock. Thirdly, alongside that, extra help will be available to those on low incomes.

[Dave Doogan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Emma Reynolds]

I will in a minute.

Before I do that, I want to say something about means-testing. I have found, both in this debate and in the earlier debate in Westminster Hall where no Conservative Members were present, that there is a lot of support for means-testing the winter fuel payment. We heard from the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), who said in this debate that he supports means-testing this benefit. We heard that the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), who is the Conservative leadership contest favourite, also supports means-testing this benefit.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I will come on to that point, but first I want to say how crucial it is to boost the uptake of pension credit.

We are taking immediate action to increase that take-up, given that up to an estimated 880,000 eligible pensioners are missing out on this support, worth £3,900 on average. I hope there can be some consensus across the House that we need to work together to boost that uptake. That is why last week we launched an initial pension credit week of action to boost awareness. We will continue to raise awareness until the deadline, 21 December, for making a successful backdated pension credit claim.

[Dave Doogan]

I grateful to the Minister for giving way. On awareness, is she aware how much more it costs to heat a home in winter in Blairgowrie, compared with Brighton or Belgravia?

[Emma Reynolds]

I will come on to the issue the hon. Gentleman raises in just a moment.

On pension credit, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) have written to all local authorities asking them to redouble their efforts to reach those pensioners who could benefit from pension credit. [Interruption.] The Opposition Front Bench might grumble, but it is a far sight more than they ever did when they were in power. We are joining forces with charities such as Age UK and Citizens Advice to encourage pensioners to check their eligibility and apply. We will be delivering a major campaign in print and broadcast media, including to urge people to reach out to retired family, friends and neighbours to get them to check if they are eligible.