Beer Duty

Debate between Jonathan Brash and Mike Wood

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Lady is completely right because of the margins that such brewers operate on. The concern now is that, if reports are correct and the Government are considering beer duty as a revenue raiser to fill the gap in the Chancellor’s budget, so much of the progress will be put at risk.

Since the Government took office last July, almost every decision that the Chancellor has taken seems to have gone in the wrong direction when it comes to supporting pubs, hospitality and brewing. Just months into office, the Chancellor confirmed that beer duty would rise in line with the retail prices index from February this year—a sharp and sudden shift, which wiped out so many of the gains. That really needs to be a one-off because the return of automatic uprating every year would be a real betrayal of both the brewing industry and consumers. It would mean higher prices at the local, more pressure on struggling pubs and reduced confidence for independent brewers. That would be not just bad policy but economically incoherent. While costs are high across the supply chain and the Government are piling further costs on to pubs and brewers through wage costs, the Government have decided to add further instability and more tax, rather than consolidating reforms that were already delivering value.

Under the last Government the draft relief was introduced to give pubs a much needed lifeline, cutting duty on beer from draft containers over 20 litres and reinforcing the social and economic value of the on trade. I campaigned hard for that. I was delighted when my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), as Chancellor, agreed to a differential duty for draft beer. Then the Leader of the Opposition, as Exchequer Secretary, introduced it as part of the alcohol duty review.

I know that the Minister harbours some ambitions; I hope that the subsequent elevation of predecessors who moved to support pubs through duty reform will offer him some inspiration. Reports of a potential review that could scale back the benefits of that draft beer duty rate are deeply concerning. Small producer relief, launched under the last Government and building on the success of Gordon Brown’s small breweries relief, was a significant step forward. I pay tribute to Gordon Brown for that measure, if nothing else: small breweries relief played an important part in encouraging the emergence of a thriving small brewing community, from hobbyists through to established local brewers, in every part of the country. We are seeing the long-term benefits, both economic and cultural.

[Mr Brash]

The hon. Gentleman has argued eloquently in favour of the record of the last Government, but ahead of the last general election the British Beer and Pub Association reported that more than 10 pubs a week were closing under the last Government. That does not seem a record to be particularly proud of.

[Mike Wood]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that 10 pubs a week were closing; a number of those, I think, had been artificially sustained through covid by support, but there has been a long-term trend, going back to the turn of the century, of far too many pubs closing. The difference was that the last Government were taking action to try to address that trend. We are waiting to see whether this Government will match that action.

British beer is not just an industry but a cultural institution. The evidence of a link between price and alcohol consumption is tenuous at best, but we do know that as prices rise, habits change. When they rise sharply, consumers switch how and what they drink: they go from drinking low-strength beers and ciders to higher-strength wines and spirits. They go from drinking in well-regulated pubs and bars to drinking more at home, without that monitoring and oversight. Publicans tell us that the support that they once felt is now gone. Brewers, especially in rural and coastal areas, are seeing margins tighten and options shrink, and it is drinkers who are paying more for less.

We are looking to the Government to reverse the automatic RPI uprating and freeze duty for the remainder of this Parliament; to expand draught relief, to ensure that packaged beer sold in pubs pays a significantly lower duty rate than that sold mainly in supermarkets; to raise the small producer threshold, allowing businesses, including family brewers, to grow without fear of penalty; and to commit to a long-term transparent policy that supports investment and sustainability in the brewing industry.

Neither our brewers nor our community pubs can afford to take the hit now by being seen as cash cows for the Chancellor’s need to raise revenue. Real ale deserves real support. Labour’s national insurance rises and slashing of business rate relief has hammered pubs, while its cap on business property relief is a real threat to family brewers. The least that the Government can do is offer some comfort by reducing the pressures caused by high beer duty rates. Consumers, publicans and brewers alike will be watching carefully to see whether the Minister is truly on their side.

Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation

Debate between Jonathan Brash and Mike Wood

Monday 17th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. My mother is a WASPI woman and, as fortune would have it, today is her birthday. It would be wonderful if the Minister could give her the birthday present of changing the Government’s position on this issue.

The arguments have been well rehearsed and, indeed, the facts are clear thanks to the ombudsman’s report. Published in March 2024, it found that the DWP failed these women. The communication of changes to the state pension age was not just inadequate: it was negligent. Women were left in the dark, unable to make informed decisions about their financial futures. The impact of the failure has been devastating. Lives have been upended and plans have been torn apart. Women who worked hard, contributed to society and looked forward to a well-earned retirement were instead met with stress, anxiety, uncertainty and the harsh reality of financial insecurity.

The Government have rightly apologised, but I say gently to the Minister that it is somewhat intellectually incoherent to apologise but then also offer reasons—such as claiming that 90% of women knew—as to why compensation should not be paid. If they believe that, what are they apologising for?

[Mike Wood (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)]

I wish the hon. Gentleman’s mother a very happy birthday. It is a great date of birth to share.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the ombudsman’s report concluded that there had been maladministration between 2005 and 2007, and that some women had suffered a loss as a result of that maladministration. The Government accept that there was maladministration. The ombudsman has left it to Parliament to decide how to make sure that those who suffered loss get properly recompensed. What would it say about us as a Parliament if we decide that yes, the maladministration is there and the loss is there but, frankly, we are not going to do anything about it?

[Mr Brash]

I agree with the hon. Member, who makes the interesting point that it is down to Parliament, rather than Ministers, because we are talking about the parliamentary ombudsman. I have to point out, though, that it would have been helpful if the ombudsman’s report had not been kicked into the long grass by the previous Administration.

I continue to believe that options were available to Ministers other than simply saying no. Other options include looking at those most in need—we have already heard about those WASPI women who are beneath the poverty line; or looking at staged or interim payments based on age; or just engaging in dialogue about the ombudsman’s findings at all. I urge Ministers to consider those options.

Rather than rehearse arguments that have been made many times, I want to talk more broadly about the impact of this issue on our politics, as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton and Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) mentioned. We cannot leverage votes on an issue when in opposition, only to turn around and say no when we are in government, because that risks disenfranchising our voters. Recent history tells us that disenfranchisement does not lead voters to vote for no one. It leads to them voting for anyone. This country faces that danger right now, in terms of the level of trust in politics. Voters’ trust is rightly hard won, but very easily lost.

During the general election campaign, on countless doorsteps and in numerous emails and conversations, I was challenged by Hartlepool voters on the WASPI issue. I pledged my support to every single one of them. I stood by them as they campaigned and told them that if I became their Member of Parliament, I would always stand up for them. I will not renege on that promise. I remember being joined on one doorstep by a senior member of the then shadow Cabinet. The voter, fixing the shadow Minister with a stare, gestured to me and said, “But how can we trust him?” The reply came from the shadow Minister, “Well, Jonathan is Hartlepool first, country second and party third.” I am happy to say that that remains the case.

I am not here to bash my party or my Government. Politics is not binary. Although many will disagree, I believe that standing up and saying when you think something is wrong is a profound act of loyalty to my party. It is my duty to stand up for WASPI women. That is the promise I made to them and, no matter the consequence, that will never change.