Finance Bill

Debate between Dave Doogan and Nusrat Ghani

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 ---

[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.

Great British Energy Bill

Debate between Dave Doogan and Nusrat Ghani

Report stage
Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan]

I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman is driving at, but if he wants to get in touch with me after the debate, I will be happy to discuss it further.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. We are debating the amendments to the Bill, not SNP policy.

[Dave Doogan]

Well, indeed.

Will the Minister advise us whether we are talking about GB electricity or GB energy? I would be keen to know what investments and ambition this supposedly state-owned company—I have to grit my teeth when I say that, because it is actually little more than a trading fund—will be involved in? Will it be involved in carbon capture, utilisation and storage? Will it be involved in attenuated hydro? Will it be involved in pumped storage, geothermal or hydrogen? What are the limits of GB Energy? That is not in the Bill, and we do not understand what it will deliver. As other hon. Members have asked, what is the Government’s ambition on GB Energy when it comes to Grangemouth? Is it just limited to the common or garden production of electricity?

I will not vote with the Government on the Bill. I do not want to condemn it as an election prop that is now desperately looking for some sort of function—I hope it amounts to more than that—but I will vote for the amendments, and so will my colleagues, to try to make some sense of the Bill.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Debate between Dave Doogan and Nusrat Ghani

Committee of the whole House
Wednesday 4th September 2024 Commons Chamber

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) and that rundown of her fantastic constituency. I want to go there now that I have heard about it, although she might be surprised to know that I am quite familiar with that part of the world around Portsmouth North, Fareham, Gosport, Hayling Island and Southsea. It is a beautiful part of the world, and while it cannot compete with Scotland in scenery, it certainly wins the day when it comes to weather in the summertime. She might also be surprised to know that there is a fairly high concentration of Pompey supporters in Perthshire. That is a legacy of the Royal Naval aircraft workshops outside Perth, when people used to go down to the Royal Naval aircraft yard in Gosport, and picked up a loyalty to Pompey from there. I offer many congratulations, not least on a fantastic maiden speech but also on those exceptional shoes.

I am concerned, indeed troubled as many people will be, about the role of the Treasury and Chancellor in the last couple of months. We are here to talk about budget responsibility, and I wonder what answer we would get if we were to ask the 80% of pensioners on these islands who are about to be stripped of their winter fuel payment what they think is responsible about that budget intervention. We could ask the millions living in poverty across these island—a disgrace in and of itself—what they think about budget responsibility in their lives, now double scuppered by Labour’s two-child cap. We could ask the millions of working poor across these islands, who are trying to do right by their children, their employer, and just pay their bills to get by, and who put their kids to bed every night and then sit up all night worrying about everything, what difference this fiscal lock will make to their lives.

The Chancellor’s first two acts on taking up her role was to make life harder for the poorest families in society who have the least. Once she had dispatched them, she turned her fire on pensioners, removing their winter fuel allowance. Austerity 2.0—it does not matter to Scotland whether austerity comes in a Labour or Tory wrapper, it is still as caustic. That is relevant because the Chancellor wants us to believe that the Bill and the fiscal lock will make everything okay, but it does not. The Office for Budget Responsibility will take no view on the qualitative merits or otherwise of any Treasury decision, but merely on the quantitative dimension in fiscal terms. There are no locks in the Bill to protect the people of these islands from this Labour Chancellor.

We hear ad nauseam that the Chancellor had no choice in any of these actions, and the worst inheritance since the war, and it goes on and on. Well:

“The numbers may be a little bit worse than they thought at the time, and I think there were some things that were hidden from view, but the overall picture over the next four or five years is very, very similar to what we knew before the election.”

Those are not my words, but those of Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. If that is not good enough, the SNP warned throughout the election that if Labour stuck to Tory spending plans, taxes would rise and/or budgets would be cut, and here we are. The SNP even challenged Labour in Scotland on that point during the election, and the leader of Labour in Scotland, Anas Sarwar, said,

“read my lips: no austerity under Labour”.

He is not saying that now is he, because he cannot. Perhaps the Chancellor, or those on her Front Bench, can advise us about whether Mr Sarwar was having a stumble with the truth that day, or whether they had forgotten to let their branch office in Scotland in on the plan. Despite all that, the Chancellor and her Treasury Front Bench persist in their claims about a £22 billion black hole to defend their indefensible attacks on the poorest in society. It is unacceptable, and the Bill, if enacted, will do nothing to protect communities from that.

I am also troubled by the language that those on the Treasury Front Bench seek to use to accrue some form of disproportionate credit for bringing forward the Bill. At its core, the Bill is nothing more than an additional provision to the existing Act, and the exaggerated language around it exposes the weakness of the Government’s position on this fiscal lock. Nothing is either locked in or locked out by the Bill. The OBR cannot stop any Budget or fiscal adjustment, good, bad or indifferent. That is Parliament’s role, as other right hon. and hon. Members have pointed out. On Second Reading I pointed that out to the Minister, who declined to concede on the absolute fact that the position is as I have just set out. I hope he has had a chance to reflect on the so-called fiscal lock, which is nothing more than an administrative assessment of Treasury plans on which nothing is contingent. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said that she is keen for those on the Treasury Front Bench to be held to a higher fiscal standard. Fair enough, but the Bill will not do that. This is in abstract the narrowest one-dimensional protection from bad fiscal policy.

Labour Members are seemingly addicted—the Bill evidences this—to some sort of pound shop exaggeration, and a troubling reliance on hyperbole when detailing something profoundly ordinary. The fiscal lock and the Bill will not protect the devolved nations and their budgets from the austerity of the Labour Front Bench. Before the general election, when Labour in Wales was facing NHS budget pressures, the now Secretary of State said that

“all roads lead to the Tories”

and Westminster, in accordance with those budget pressures. Now, after the election, we have a Labour Government, the SNP in Scotland is facing those same budget pressures, and it is the SNP’s fault. They cannot have it both ways. They have got the job and they need to own it.

The Chancellor claimed that the SNP should raise income taxes to pay for her cut to the winter fuel allowance in Scotland. The cheek of it! I remind those on the Treasury Front Bench that 70% of taxes raised in Scotland go directly to the Treasury. We have paid our dues, and shame on the Chancellor for trying to get Scottish taxpayers to pay twice to compensate for her axe wielding. The double standards of it all are staggering. She wants the Scottish Government to raise income taxes in Scotland, which is precisely what she refused to do ahead of the UK general election. Why will she not mirror the Scottish Government’s progressive income tax regime to increase taxes slightly on those of us who are better off, and reduce taxes slightly for those on the lowest incomes? That would raise nearly £16 billion for the Treasury. If she had done that and followed the SNP Scottish Government’s lead, she would not have had to attack our pensioners’ winter fuel allowance. A significant element of budget responsibility is ensuring that people own their decisions and their own mess. Labour will find that SNP Members are keen to help them in that pursuit. In summary, there is nothing particularly to object to in this inherently ordinary and transactional provision in the Bill, except for the behaviour of the Government advancing it.

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

I call Will Stone to make his maiden speech.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Debate between Dave Doogan and Nusrat Ghani

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), who just delivered a textbook maiden speech, and negotiated his way around the fairly awkward changes to the Glasgow constituencies. Judging by the unanimous reactions in the Chamber, the two former servants of his constituency that he saluted were hard-working representatives in this Chamber. I would like to reciprocate. He mentioned the former Labour Minister in the Scotland Office Ann McKechin, who invited me to her constituency office in Glasgow when I was a mature student around 2010-11. She gave me a good hour of her time, which I then thought was fairly generous. As an MP, I now realise just how generous that was to someone who was not her constituent and who, within two or three minutes, clearly demonstrated signs of a particularly different political outlook. I congratulate the hon. Member.

I welcome the Bill and commend the Government on introducing it. I am not certain that it is what they say; I will develop that point in a wee moment. Who among us could forget the aftermath of the Truss-Kwarteng debacle, which plunged businesses and households across these islands into chaos? The pair of them then disappeared off into the sunset, leaving us here to pick up the pieces of their arrogant and economically illiterate fiscal experiment while in government. If anyone has forgotten, it is not mortgage payers up and down these islands, who are still paying the price of that Tory Government misadventure. Mortgage rates spiked at 6% after the mini-Budget. Figures out last week from Moneyfacts show that the average rate for a two-year fixed deal is still 5.79%.

We in the SNP warned at the time that the mini-Budget would lead to economic chaos, so we can only support the measures in the Bill to help ensure that there is never a repeat of that ridiculous performance.

An independent assessment by the OBR for major and permanent fiscal interventions is welcome. It is responsible and the SNP supports it, but to be clear it is no silver bullet. It will not fix the economy, and nor will it prevent fiscal incompetence from the current or future Chancellors, their officials or junior Ministers. It will not fix the credibility of Chancellors who, for example, on taking office say they did not know about the £20 billion black hole in the previous Government’s fiscal plan that they were adopting, even though they were warned about it repeatedly and in public by the SNP, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others.

The SNP welcomes efforts at increasing economic transparency, but the truth is that Labour has also been substantially short of honest with the public in this area. The new Government are seeking to create a counter-narrative or counter-reality to uphold the belief that the cuts and tax hikes that Labour will soon visit upon businesses and communities across these islands have been done to Labour by the Tories, rather than done to the people by Labour. That is the truth of the matter. If Labour is serious about restoring faith in, and the growth of, the economy, much more action is needed from the Government. No economy ever cut its way to growth; rather, growth is a function of investment.

In closing, I greatly fear that the new Labour Government are getting a bit carried away with their own success and are sailing off from reality at some knots. I cite the nauseating “Government of service” hyperbole, the Potemkin energy company that is GB Energy, which is abject nonsense, and now the “fiscal lock” set out in the Bill. An assessment by the OBR is not a lock on anything. It does not enable or prevent anything. It does not confine, nor does it decide anything. Parliament will never allow it to be used as a shield for the Chancellor. From its beginning to its end, it is simply an impartial assessment leaving the hands of the Chancellor of the day free to prosecute whatever plan they wish, consistent with the OBR’s assessment or not. And so it should be, because Parliament is here to hold the Government to account—as are the people across these islands, which we have seen recently.

To be clear, this provision is certainly no replacement for the rigorous parliamentary scrutiny of fiscal policy. That is a core function of this House, which I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, agree with. In the interests of consensus, will the Minister concede this minor point of detail—that “fiscal report” is far more realistic in terms of what it actually means than “fiscal lock”, for this nevertheless welcome measure?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

I call Blair McDougall to make his maiden speech.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Dave Doogan and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 18th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

12. What recent comparative assessment her Department has made of trends in goods exports from (a) the UK and (b) other G7 countries.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The UK’s total exports have now recovered to pre-pandemic levels, measured against 2018. In 2022, UK exports were £815 billion, up by 21% in current prices compared with 2018, and up by 0.5% once adjusted for inflation. The latest data shows Scotland is the third highest exporting nation or region in both goods and services. In 2022 Scottish exports of goods totalled £35.7 billion, up by 23.5% in current prices from the previous year.

[Dave Doogan]

I know just what a favourable position Scotland is in, in terms of its trade exports. We do very well, even though we are held back by the constraints of this Union. The Office for National Statistics figures show that UK exports are lagging behind other G7 countries. Before the Minister tells us that this is because of the war in Ukraine and covid, let me point out that all our G7 partners have faced those headwinds as well, but only the United Kingdom, sadly including Scotland, faces the English Brexit chaos that is damaging our trade. What discussions has she had to apologise to the Scottish Government and to Scottish businesses for the drag she places on Scottish trade?

[Ms Ghani]

The hon. Gentleman started so positively. If he is against Brexit, then he is against every trade deal, and he is against the most integrated single market in the world, which is Scotland and England. All he wants to do is to split, split, split. I have already told him the good news that the total amount of exports in pounds is up. There is also fantastic news about whisky—surely that can raise a smile from the hon. Gentleman—and about services: in 2022, UK services were up by 24% in current prices, and by 4% when the figure was adjusted for inflation. I know it is difficult for the hon. Gentleman to accept good news from the Government Benches, but it is good for his constituents, so he should welcome it.

UK Car Industry

Debate between Dave Doogan and Nusrat Ghani

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

I thank the hon. Member for that question, because it shows that we have to work across Whitehall. Access to the national grid is a major issue for any of the large manufacturers and of course, as their plans grow, they need to have greater access over a faster timetable than one would have previously thought National Grid would make available. Conversations are taking place, in particular with colleagues who were previously in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who are now in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and are leading that relationship with National Grid. The issue comes up regularly in the meetings that we have with the manufacturing sector, and my priority is to support the advanced manufacturing sector, so the hon. Member can be assured that I am campaigning incredibly hard to make sure that all our advanced manufacturing sites—present or planned—get access to energy at a timetable that suits the business, not just National Grid.

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

It is deeply unimpressive for the Minister to come along today and talk about jam tomorrow—investments in future exotic technology and the investments that industry is making in that scenario—when what we actually need is conventional traction battery manufacturing capacity in the UK now. I am invested in this because of the supply chain in Scotland and because the United Kingdom has done everything it can to avoid any of the automotive foreign direct investment coming to Scotland. What will the Minister do to address the emergency of a lack of manufacturing capacity in traction batteries now, not different types of batteries in the future?

[Ms Ghani]

It is not about jam tomorrow: it is about money committed previously and money committed today. The transition to zero-emission vehicles is being supported by up to £1 billion for R&D and capital investments in strategically important parts of the electric vehicle supply chain, building on the £1.9 billion in spending review 2020. The Government have committed £620 million to support the transition to electric vehicles—that is committed today; it is not jam tomorrow. I ask the hon. Member to read all the submissions to the Select Committee, and to respond to the positive comments that have been made about why businesses continue to see the UK as a great place to manufacture cars.

British Steel: Negotiations

Debate between Dave Doogan and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)]

I have listened carefully to the Minister’s words, and she has regularly detailed the amount of public money that has gone in to support the steel industry in the United Kingdom, and said that these are commercial decisions and private discussions. I wonder though, with the renewed role for steel in the green energy transition, why the Government—I will say this, even if the Labour party will not—do not consider nationalising steel in the United Kingdom? If so much public money is going into the industry anyway and they recognise—the Minister has assured the House that they do—that steel is not just any other industry but a strategic asset for any developed economy, why does she not nationalise it?

[Ms Ghani]

Nationalisation is not going to solve any of the problems that we are talking about right now. The problems that the steel sector in the UK faces are the problems that it faces globally. It is unfortunate that the hon. Member thinks that nationalisation could be the answer to this or to everything. It would not make steel more competitive, it would close down the ability to raise money from capital markets, and the whole of the risk and burden would fall on the taxpayer, with no guarantee of a long-term, sustainable strategy. We are proposing to ensure that we have a long-term strategy which is providing support now. We provided support during covid. We are providing substantial support during the energy crisis, and there is a fund of more than £1 billion—£1.5 billion in total—to help with tackling emissions and energy costs. We have a long-term strategy in place.