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.

Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

What the Treasury does accept is that at this Budget, the Government had to make the decisions to ensure that we could increase our fiscal stability and get borrowing falling in every single year. The previous Government were not able to control our public finances, and yet in every year of this forecast, borrowing will be falling, and we have more than doubled our headroom to £21.7 billion.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Go on—that’s helpful.

[Dr Arthur]

I always try to be helpful, and I thank the Minister for giving way.

There was a lot of speculation about the Budget, but a lot of that came from the Opposition Benches. Every single clickbait headline was repeated in the Chamber to fuel speculation. It was incredibly damaging—does the Minister not agree?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I agree that the Opposition are incredibly damaging for the economy.

The clean-up operation of the disaster zone that was the last 14 years is well and truly under way. Our economic plan is working, with growth up, employment up, interest rates down and borrowing falling, with a Labour Budget focused on the British people delivered by a Labour Chancellor making the fair and right choices. We reject this absurd monologue of emotion from the Conservatives, and we will stick to our plan for a better Britain.

Question put.

OBR: Resignation of Chair

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question—I am glad that, not having had time to take his intervention yesterday, we are now back to business as usual with frequent exchanges across the Chamber. We probably disagree about the OBR’s role, but I hope he recognises the benefit of one of the changes to what the OBR will do that the Chancellor announced in last week’s Budget. As I said to the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) a few moments ago, although the OBR is required to produce two forecasts a year, the Chancellor has announced that the spring forecast will not include an assessment against the fiscal rules, and the Government will not respond with fiscal policy.

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

I find it rather curious that Conservative Members have a lot to say about Hugh Dalton’s Budget in 1947, but so little to say about Liz Truss’s Budget in 2022.

[Perran Moon]

Selective amnesia.

[Dr Arthur]

Exactly. It is very curious.

All the staff in my office diligently followed Mr Speaker’s advice on cyber-security and the threat of foreign intervention in our IT, and it is right that we take these matters seriously. However, based on the reports we have seen, I am not convinced that the OBR had taken the same kinds of steps to protect its own systems. Were the OBR and other Government Departments and agencies offered this advice but just did not follow it, or has there been an oversight in how we are managing security right across Government?

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that while Conservative Members are keen to raise points of history, they seem to be rewriting history when it comes to their last few years in office. He asks an important question about cyber-security. The Government will work with the National Cyber Security Centre and the OBR to take forward the OBR report’s recommendation that a forensic examination of potential premature access at previous fiscal events be carried out. For the avoidance of doubt, I should reiterate that the report found no evidence of hostile cyber-activity, but my hon. Friend is right to point out that information security and cyber-security are important for all of us across Government. Indeed, that was reflected in the spending review.

Taxes

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dr Spencer]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That was pretty much what I was going on to say. We are seeing this constant kite-flying about various different potential taxes or cooked up schemes that could affect different walks of life, as the Government are trying to keep meeting their burgeoning and ever-growing spending commitments. That is making people lose confidence, and it has a real impact on the decisions they are making here and now, even without the policies having been enacted. Like it or not, the Budget on the 26th is already here and operating. It is operating through the media, and people are making decisions now that are having a real impact, particularly in my patch.

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

This is a serious point. People who are worried about the financial situation in the country will save rather than spend, whether they are private individuals or business. But is not the very aim of this debate to fuel that speculation and make people feel more anxious?

[Dr Spencer]

We were hoping that this debate would clarify the inability of the Prime Minister to answer the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition only two weeks ago: about whether he would repeat the manifesto commitment not to raise the big three taxes. We are in a period of uncertainty that we are trying to resolve, and it has been created by this ongoing kite flying.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank my constituency neighbour, and of course I am always happy to take interventions.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. My home town is Kirkcaldy, and a former MP for Kirkcaldy is Gordon Brown, of course. In the Blair-Brown Government, he did a lot of work to cut child poverty, which is something I am really proud of, and he cut pensioner poverty as well. Conservative Members should be absolutely ashamed of what they did to child poverty in the UK. I and my colleagues on these Benches, I am sure, will do everything we can to reduce child poverty—including, I hope, removing the two-child cap.

[Dr Spencer]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his clarity. Labour Members have been keen to talk about the past, so I am glad that he brought up Gordon Brown, who sold the gold at record levels, which led to a mess that we had to clean up.

Homeowners are concerned, particularly in my constituency, where many people are asset rich but cash poor. Many pensioners are worried about pension tax. People who do the right thing—make responsible decisions that we encourage, whether investing in pensions or saving for the future—are seen as targets, or potential targets, by this Government when it comes to paying for the profligate spending being offered. Those people are desperately worried. The truth is that we have to stop spending money that is not ours to spend.

Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

What a pleasure it is to serve under you this evening, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for introducing the debate so ably, and I agree with much of what he said. He presented a number of questions to the Minister on the operation of alcohol duty, but one question that was perhaps missing was around the health impacts of having the wrong level of alcohol duty in the UK. I will touch on that in my speech.

In my life, English wine has moved from being a feature of jokes on sitcoms to a premium product—sometimes in terms of price, but more importantly in terms of its quality. I am pleased to see that Scotland’s wine industry is also growing. In 2025, so far five new vineyards have registered with Food Standards Scotland. I hope that this industry will continue to flourish and grow. I am proud to have the North British Distillery, one of Scotland’s oldest and largest Scotch grain whisky producers, in my constituency; I would be in trouble if I did not mention it. I hope that any consideration to changes on alcohol duty covers the whole of the industry in the UK, rather than just one part of it.

As much as I want these industries to thrive, and I absolutely do, we must be conscious of alcohol’s public health implications. It is our responsibility to find the right balance, with an alcohol duty that works for businesses, as we have heard, but that also supports public health. We need an alcohol duty system that works for our wine industry, supports the hospitality sector and improves public health. I shall talk about informed moderation when it comes to drinking. I am not here to lecture anyone—I enjoy a drink, like everybody else—but I am a real advocate of awareness of the implications of consuming alcohol.

I am concerned about four things, really. I think that drinks are getting stronger; that has certainly been the case in my lifetime, and it is to the detriment of the taste of some wines. We are drinking more at home post covid, and that has real health implications. I also have to say that I am eating more crisps at home as well post covid. [Laughter.] It is a serious point, actually. Our hospitality industry is under huge pressure, and this impacts on the vibrancy of our high streets.

We have a duty to ensure that the public are aware of the risks of drinking. Recently, I met representatives from Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems. They told me that in Scotland in 2024, a total of 1,185 alcohol-specific deaths were registered. That was the lowest number registered since 2019—something that we should celebrate. It is perhaps, in least in part, due to minimum unit pricing of alcohol in Scotland, but it still shows the damage that excessive alcohol consumption can do, and it remains too high in Scotland and elsewhere.

By choosing to consume lower strength alcohol, we can continue to enjoy drinking and the benefits that it brings us on social occasions, while also addressing the harms caused by alcohol. I welcome the fact that the Government are looking quite seriously to meet their commitment to label alcohol, just as we did as a country with cigarettes, to make people more aware of some of the risks that come with drinking. For example, the World Cancer Research Fund told me that alcohol-related breast cancer can be caused even by low levels of consumption of high-strength alcoholic drinks. Reducing the strength of alcoholic drinks can reduce the likelihood of this type of cancer. I have to say, they told me about this at the Labour party conference in Liverpool—not the best place to give people advice on drinking a little bit less. That is why I feel that a well-designed minimum unit pricing system across the UK is worth considering, alongside a meaningful and well-structured alcohol duty regime, but I understand some of the concerns around minimum unit pricing of alcohol.

Many people active in this sector look back to when Alistair Darling was Chancellor in the UK, and the changes that he made to the alcohol duty regime and how that directly related to improved health outcomes for people. That is something that we can learn from. I am always proud to say that I followed him, although there was someone between us, as MP for Edinburgh South West.

Alongside an effective duty system, it is also right that we encourage drinking in as safe an environment as possible, while supporting our hospitality industry. During a meeting with the Institute of Alcohol Studies last month, I was told that freezes in alcohol duty disproportionately benefit the sale of alcohol in shops, allowing supermarkets to maintain lower prices in comparison with hospitality venues. This is at the heart of so many pubs feeling the strain, because it is so much cheaper for people to drink at home than in pubs and other venues. Hospitality is a massive employer in the UK, and it is under huge stress. We need to look at taxation of alcohol right across the board to make sure that we are benefiting that sector while also reducing harmful drinking at home. An effective alcohol duty can support many of these jobs by closing the gap between the prices in pubs and supermarkets. That, in turn, encourages people to drink—hopefully, British-produced alcohol—publicly, which is far safer than consumption in private.

It is right that we take time to thoroughly consider alcohol duty, and make sure that it works for our wine industry and for businesses like the North British Distillery in my constituency. But we also have to see this debate as an opportunity to support the hospitality sector and improve public health. These are three really important things, and I do not envy the Minister in trying to reach a balance between them.

Stamp Duty Land Tax

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The tax is a blocker on the aspirations of those who are growing their families and simply want to find a home with more bedrooms. Often, they cannot find those homes because empty nesters—those whose children have left home—are not prepared to face the huge, eyewatering stamp duty involved.

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

Is not the reality that people cannot find homes in England because his Government failed to build them while in power?

[Sir Mel Stride]

We built 2.8 million homes since 2010, and a million in the last Parliament. It remains to be seen how many homes this Government will build.

Another huge advantage of abolishing stamp duty is that it will generate more transactions, which will benefit more plumbers, electricians, builders, designers, estate agents, surveyors and conveyancers, and allow local economies to thrive. Above all, it will increase the effective supply of housing, and that means a fairer society and a stronger economy.

Energy Profits Levy: North-east Scotland

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Leadbitter]

Will the Minister give way?

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I shall take both interventions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I will first take the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur).

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the Minister for giving way, but I note that he took my intervention second rather than first—I am not offended!

On the position in Scotland, it is worthing remembering that Scotland’s Deputy First Minister said at the SNP party conference at the weekend that the Scottish Government want to scrap the EPL—sorry, I meant they want to replace it with something else. But, of course, she did not say what that something else was; it is slightly cowardly not to define that detail.

The Minister was talking about the strength of the renewables sector in the UK and how it is growing under this Government, and we all appreciate and welcome that, but that sector also needs continuity and a stable framework to work within. Does he therefore share my concern about the Opposition taking the decision to ditch the Climate Change Act, which has really unsettled the whole industry?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I believe the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) was slightly quicker in standing up than my hon. Friend.

I do understand my hon. Friend’s points. It is very important not to be cowardly in politics, which is why I will make sure that we come forward as fast as we can to set out the approach after the EPL is set to end. This Government, under the leadership of a whole range of Cabinet Ministers, is making sure that we can provide that long-term certainty, not chopping and changing when it comes to our policies on net zero.

The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan mentioned energy security, which links to the challenge we have with energy bills. It is worth recognising the truth that, even if we extracted every single drop of oil and gas in the North sea, that would not make any material difference to people’s energy bills or the prices that people pay at the pump. Oil and gas are traded on international markets, and given the declining basin on the UK continental shelf, domestically produced oil and gas do not do anything to reduce prices. In fact, it is our reliance on oil and gas that leaves British consumers exposed to unstable fossil fuel markets.

In closing, this Government are determined to provide a balance—

Property Taxes

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about the Conservative party—I am sure that they are deeply felt and very genuine. What the Deputy Prime Minister should be doing is delivering more homes. It is quite clear that the target of 1.5 million homes, which the Government claim they will deliver at the rate of 300,000 a year, will not be met. I am quite happy to be proven wrong, but I very much suspect that I will not be, unfortunately.

We have ended up in a situation in which a huge black hole is looming. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research puts it at possibly as much as £40 billion. The economic mismanagement of the Labour party is a recurrent theme. In the October Budget—the Government’s first—there was headroom of about £10 billion against the fiscal rules. That, plus £4 billion more, was blown by the time of the spring statement—the emergency Budget. Once again, it appears that considerably more has been blown all over again.

That is no surprise. The U-turns on winter fuel payments and on welfare reform, which we have already discussed in this debate, led to unfunded commitments of around £6 billion—unfunded commitments after the Chancellor had said that the Labour party would never find itself in that position. What she said has simply not happened. What signal does it send to the markets when the Government cannot control spending? In the long-term, it will be interesting to see what the Office for Budget Responsibility has to say about its forecasts for growth. In recent times, 30-year bond yields have hit a 27-year high. We are paying more to borrow than Greece. There is a potential debt crisis looming, and this country could be on the brink—all on Labour’s watch.

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

The Government inherited bond yields higher than those in many other countries. Right now bond yields are going up in Japan, Germany and the United States. Is the Chancellor responsible for all that?

[Sir Mel Stride]

There is no doubt that under the previous Government there was a need to support the economy. That involved the expenditure of £400 billion, not least on the furlough scheme. I do not remember the hon. Gentleman’s party arguing at the time that we should not do that; in fact, it argued that we should go further still. The Conservative Government stepped in, supported jobs and saved us from going into mass unemployment that many feared would be worse than even in the 1980s, and I take great pride in that. But we are where we are now, and what the Government should be doing is growing the economy, stoking up business sentiment, getting taxes down and getting the economy moving, but they are doing precisely the opposite.

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank the hon. Member for his question. He will know that the Government have renewed our commitment to regional airport capacity, with plans for a national policy statement to be published in due course. I am sure the Transport Secretary and her team are listening to him on the increasing costs for his constituents of those flights, which we would of course like to reduce, if we can.

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

As a civil engineer, I absolutely welcome the Minister’s statement, but I want to respond to it within the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. If he does not mind, I will start by giving him some advice. If he is going to meet his counterpart in the Scottish Government, do not mention Sheriffhall roundabout on the Edinburgh city bypass. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) is laughing. Over the past eight years, there have been lots of reports but no delivery and the price has moved from £120 million to, I think, £300 million now—quite incredible.

On to my point, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the long-term plan. There are kids at school today who will be involved in delivering it. I welcome the connection with schools and colleges, but my right hon. Friend will know that universities in England are under huge pressure and universities in Scotland are in crisis. What part will they play in developing the skills we need to deliver these projects?

[Darren Jones]

Our universities play a crucial part in our education and skills landscape. They are, of course, privately-owned organisations and so are funded separately from the departmental budgets we have allocated in the spending review. The money announced last week and in the infrastructure strategy today is for schools and further education colleges. Any further changes to help universities with their estates will be announced in due course.

Family Businesses

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lewis Cocking]

What my hon. Friend says from a sedentary position is probably correct. Businesses and farmers in my constituency think that the Government have sold them down the river and led them up the garden path—they are doing things that they did not think they would do when they were trying to get into power. We have not heard from the Government what they are doing to support businesses and family businesses.

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

The hon. Member speaks with great passion about his constituency, and I understand some of the concerns he has raised. He asks what the Government are doing. Apart from all the money we are putting into the NHS and all the money going into education, what are we doing? He earlier gave the example of a single person running a business about to employ their first person, which is a big step for any business—I accept that. But is it not the case that those small businesses will be paying less national insurance as a result of this Budget?

[Lewis Cocking]

Businesses in my constituency are putting off investing and employing local people because of the jobs tax and the Government’s proposed new regulation. I hope that when the Minister winds up, he will say what the Government will do to create the next generation of entrepreneurs.

We could turbocharge the education system. There are lots of fantastic teachers in my constituency and across the country who do a sterling job for young people. We could say to people who have created businesses, “We will give you some money off your tax bill if you go back to your secondary school and teach not from a textbook, but from real life experience about how to create growth, jobs and businesses and enthuse those students about creating their own businesses.” People do not have to go to a maths class to understand maths. Someone who has run a business could come in and say, “Right, we’ve got to do your accounts now. You’ve got to see how much you are going to pay people and how much tax you will pay.” We could get people in from the creative industries. They could say, “Right, now you have to design your logo. How are you going to do that? You’ve got to design a TV advertisement for your product, for what you are going to sell.” We could be doing that. We could be thinking outside the box.

I have not heard what support the Government are giving to create the next generation of entrepreneurs. If we do not unlock their aspiration and continue to allow people to take risks and invest in their ideas, there will be no taxes coming in or money for public services. We must do this, and we must do it more regularly. I hope the Minister will tell the House how he will unlock the next generation of entrepreneurs and how we will support people to take what is, as I said, a massive risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that public spending is increasing faster than he expected. Perhaps he could outline where he thinks it should now be cut to make that good, starting with public services in his own constituency.

[Nick Timothy]

The hon. Gentleman is a little confused. Public spending is not increasing faster than I expected; it is increasing faster than his party told the country. That is the point.

The Treasury might not be what it once was, but even if we believed what the Minister said about the fictional black hole, which the Office for Budget Responsibility has disowned, £9.5 billion plus £22 billion does not reach even half of the £76 billion in extra Labour spending. I am not sure whether the Minister is listening, but he can intervene if he wants to explain himself at this point—he clearly is not.

What do we get for these extra taxes? The Home Office budget is being cut by 2.7% in real terms compared with last year. The Department for Transport budget is being cut by 2.5%, and its capital budget is being cut by 3.1%. That is economic illiteracy. This amounts to taxsterity —tax rises and spending cuts—to go with stagflation, or stagnation and inflation. That is Labour economics.