Finance (No. 2) Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seamus Logan]

I agree with my hon. Friend completely. I implore the Treasury to reconsider and hear what the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) said, but if it does not, my party will bring forward a suitable amendment on Report.

Labour MPs have talked a big talk about how much money is going to Scotland, but I would like to ask them how much they are taking away from Scotland, whether it is through the APR, the energy profits levy, the excise duty on Scotch whisky or the national insurance hike. Once again, it feels like Scotland’s wealth and success are being used against it by an uncaring Westminster Government.

I want to turn to one other issue: NHS drug costs. They are not in the Finance Bill, but my point is that they should have been. I appreciate that you are giving me a bit of leeway, Madam Deputy Speaker. The new UK-US trade deal in medicines raises huge questions about where the money is coming from to pay for these increases in drugs costs. If the additional costs are to come from within existing NHS budgets—that is, through efficiency savings—I must ask the Government whether they have read the University of York’s impact assessment concerning excess deaths and negative impacts on cancer patients, gastroenterology and respiratory care in particular. If the additional costs are to come from the Treasury, where is this mentioned in the Budget, in this Finance Bill or in the accompanying Red Book? It is certainly not in the Bill, but it should have been. The OBR will be listening and watching, and will get to this in due course.

What does all this mean for Scotland in Barnett consequentials? Why has there been so little opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of this smoke-and-mirrors deal? Transparency is needed on costs. The Health Secretary says £1 billion to £1.5 billion. The OBR says £3 billion, and £6 billion has been suggested by other commentators. Which is it? The Government hail it as a great deal for the UK, but the truth is that no matter where this money comes from—the Treasury or existing NHS funds—patients will ultimately pay the price for filling this pharma black hole. It looks like the UK Government are over a barrel on this, with drug companies threatening to pull out of investment in the UK, bullying from an increasingly erratic White House and creeping privatisation of the NHS. The Government need to provide some answers. I simply say to all Labour Members who have bragged this evening about what a wonderful Bill this is and what a wonderful Budget this has been: why are the polls showing that this Government are the least popular in history?

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way at such an opportune point. I respect the fact that he is here and that his political ambition is Scottish independence. The Government negotiated that trade deal with the United States, and it is one of the best deals any country in the world has. I find myself wondering what kind of deal an independent Scottish Government—perhaps led by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) sitting next to him or by John Swinney—could negotiate with Donald Trump. Would it be a better deal or a worse deal?

[Seamus Logan]

I am glad to hear that the hon. Member respects our desire for Scottish independence. I simply say to him: when will this Government respect the democratic will of the Scottish people?

I could go on to talk about energy and the coastal growth fund—two measures that, again, have particularly hurt my constituents—but I will leave it there.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 13th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Wild]

It feels like we are getting warmed up for scrutinising the 536 pages of the Bill upstairs in the Public Bill Committee shortly. It is good to see that the popularity of the topics we are debating has increased as we move on to alcohol duty, which clause 86 increases in line with the retail prices index from 1 February.

I am proud to confirm that His Majesty’s Opposition are big supporters of beer, wine, spirits and hospitality businesses. As such, we oppose these tax rises. This £26 billion tax-raising Budget piles pressure on households and businesses that are already struggling because of the decisions of the Chancellor. Prices are high, growth is sluggish and now the Chancellor has chosen to impose another duty hike.

Our new clause 26 would therefore require the Chancellor to publish a statement on the impact of increasing alcohol duty on the hospitality sector, on pubs, on UK wine, spirit and beer producers, on jobs and on the public finances. These sectors are already being hammered by this Government’s economic choices. A Government who say that the cost of living is their priority are raising alcohol duty, putting more cost on to people and businesses that keep our rural communities and high streets alive.

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

May I start by wishing everybody taking part in dry January good luck? I admit that I am not one of them. It is fantastic that the shadow Minister is talking about the impact of these changes, but I am surprised that his list did not include alcohol harm. Many charities and campaign groups are pleased that the Government are trying to move people away from drinking at home to drinking in the hospitality sector. Does he accept that that is a good thing and its benefits should be evaluated?

[James Wild]

Indeed. When we brought in the new duty system, we focused on the strength of alcohol in terms of the tax. We want to encourage more people into the hospitality sector, but the Government seem to have a policy of driving people away from going into pubs—and not just Labour MPs.

In government, we recognised the importance of those sectors to jobs, to our communities and to growth, and the simplified duty system, including the two new reliefs—draught relief and small producer relief—were warmly welcomed. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) made the point that the Government are choosing not to implement similar measures on draught relief. At the 2023 autumn statement we froze alcohol duty rates, and we extended that freeze in the spring Budget of 2024. I am proud to support that record: we had a Government working with the sector, not against it. It gives me no pleasure to say that this Government have chosen a very different path.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful for that question, but if the hon. Member reads the explanatory statement closely, he will see that it says “alongside wider fiscal changes”. The Government could of course widen that to other legislative changes, if they chose to do so. However, on that basis, I hope the hon. Member and his colleague will be supporting the new clause when we push it to a vote later.

[Dr Arthur]

As an important point of clarity on the living wage, which of our constituents on low pay does the hon. Member think do not deserve that uplift in living wage? Is she saying they do not deserve it?

[Daisy Cooper]

Absolutely not. During the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, we Liberal Democrats said repeatedly on the record in both Houses that we supported a higher minimum wage. The problem we are hearing from businesses, particularly small businesses, is that they are getting lots of changes from the Government all at once. It is business rates changes, higher contributions, wages, the new regulation and now alcohol duty as well. It is the cumulative impact of all of the employment changes and the fiscal changes that means business owners and pub landlords just cannot cope.

This is about the cumulative impact. We have made very clear which measures we support and which ones we do not, but the cumulative impact is felt by small businesses. That is why, during the passage of the Employment Rights Bill, we tabled a number of amendments asking the Government to report on the impact on small businesses in particular. I hope that has clarified the matter for the hon. Member.

[Dr Arthur]

A wide range of concerns has been developed, and I get the point that these are costing the hospitality sector money—I absolutely get that—but all that the Lib Dems are promising is a review. What I do not hear is what they would do to resolve this and how much it would cost, apart from the broad assertion that they would cut VAT in some undefined way. What is this going to cost, and where is the money coming from?

[Daisy Cooper]

I have explained all those measures in this Chamber before, but I am happy to spell them out again, including the remarks I made a few minutes ago.

The very first thing we called for was for the Government to use the powers they gave themselves in the Budget last year. I would love to know the costings for that measure, and I have tabled written parliamentary questions to ask the Government to give me those numbers. If the Government will not answer written questions, how on earth are opposition parties supposed to come up with modern proposals? We have tabled written questions time and again, but we have not received any answers.

On the VAT point, we have costed it. We said it would cost £7 billion over 17 months, and we would fund it with a windfall tax on the big banks, which is a proposal backed by the Institute for Public Policy Research and independent economists. So we have answered all of these points and explained where the money would come from. The suggestions are fully costed and fully funded. We have made those points in this Chamber on several occasions, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see if he has a look at Hansard. My point is that, if we are going to put questions to the Government asking them for data so we can make informed policy suggestions, I very much hope that they start to answer them.

On that matter, it has been reported in various newspapers, on the BBC and in other places that the Chancellor and Ministers did not understand—those sources have quoted the Chancellor and Ministers as saying they did not understand—the impact that revaluation would have on business rates bills, especially for pubs. I find that impossible to believe, and I cannot understand how that can be the case. We know for a fact that, at the very least, the Valuation Office Agency gave the aggregate data to the Treasury. We know that because it says it in black and white—or in black and slightly red—on page 81 of the Red Book. It says that the VOA gave that data to the Treasury.

I tabled a number of written questions asking the Government whether they had received that information broken down by sector, and I did not receive any answers. I wrote a letter to the Leader of the House and I made a point of order, but again, that information was not forthcoming. Then we had a bombshell revelation today when the VOA, in giving evidence to the Treasury Committee, confirmed upon questioning that it had given data drops on the sectoral impact starting a year ago. It also confirmed to the Treasury Committee today that 5,100 pubs have seen their rateable values at least double. It therefore seems, if the VOA did provide that information to the Treasury, that the Treasury should have had that information. It is not clear to me why I did not receive data-rich answers to my written questions asking for that breakdown by sector. It is also not clear to me how the Chancellor and Ministers can say that they did not know or did not understand the impact that the revaluation would have on bills if they had had that data over the course of the past year.

I urge Ministers when they come to the House, as they are indicating they will, to provide some kind of a U-turn—we do not know what that looks like—to bring some clarity to all those questions. In the meantime, I hope the Government do support new clause 9, because we need to see the cumulative impact not just of alcohol duty changes, but their impact alongside national insurance and business rates.