Inheritance Tax

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Robbie Moore]

That is absolutely right. It is good to see the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) in his place. I hope that he will intervene in the debate and make it clear that he is also advocating for this cruel tax to be scrapped, just as the Conservatives are doing. There is hope when at least one Labour Member is willing to be bold enough to stand up against this Labour Government.

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

I regret that the hon. Gentleman has talked about suicide in this debate. Where was he when we heard the reports of the austerity implemented by his Government causing suicide? Are any Members on the Opposition Benches willing to defend that record? When invoking suicide in this debate, they have to acknowledge their own record.

[Robbie Moore]

I also regret the fact that I am talking about that issue. However, many farming representatives, including those from the National Farmers’ Union, the Country Land and Business Association and the Tenant Farmers Association, gave clear warnings to this Government that if the cliff edge associated with this tax became a reality in April 2026, there would be emotional consequences, such as anxiety. I regret that I have raised the matter, but unfortunately it is absolutely the case that suicide has taken place.

There will be a moment of hope in two weeks’ time when the Budget comes before the House: the Government could bring in 100% relief of APR and business property relief again. I urge the Government to do so and to listen to those strong calls from the industry. The hon. Gentleman asks where I was during austerity. Well, I have been a Member of Parliament for only six and a bit years. Before that, I was not in this place making any of those decisions.

There are also issues around the changes to the implementation of inheritance tax. The first payment of the tax will be due within six months of death, but the asset base will first have to be valued, so inevitably there will be challenges. The district valuers do not have the capacity to deal with the level of challenge that will come from those handling the probate valuations that will inevitably have to take place.

It worries me that, as the IHT debate has taken place in the House over the past two years, hardly any Labour MPs have stood up and advocated for the manufacturing, engineering and hotelier businesses that, I suspect, employ many of their constituents, providing them with their salaries and with opportunities to continue in a working environment. That worries me because I feel that the narrative has been lost to Labour Members. We have got time before the Budget for that narrative to change, and I firmly stand with the Conservative position that 100% relief for APR and BPR must be put back in place, and I ask the Government to listen and do something about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

One of the liberating elements of speaking at this stage of the debate is that many excellent and eminently sensible points have already been made, so I can do an assorted highlights of the best bits that have come out of it. But it has made me reflect that perhaps if we all took a stroll down to Clapham, got on the omnibus, and spoke to the man and woman who had boarded it, I suspect that their vision of this country would not be the same as the purported utopia that we have heard from those on the Government Benches today. I suspect that if we asked people what they want to see from the tax system, they would want to see something that is not unnecessarily detrimental to a single group and not punitive in its intent. Fundamentally, it should not be something that disincentivises those who have done the right thing.

Looking at the tax landscape in this country, it has become far too complicated and burdensome—we are now at more than 20,000 pages of tax codes, whereas in 1997 there were fewer than 5,000.

[Dr Arthur]

I have never been on the Clapham omnibus, but I expect that there may well be people in low-paid jobs on that who are struggling with the cost of living crisis. When the hon. Gentleman speaks to people on the omnibus, do they tell him that they want people who inherit properties worth half a million pounds or more to pay less tax? Is that the answer to the problems facing people on the Clapham omnibus? Is that what they are saying?

[Dr Shastri-Hurst]

I recommend that the hon. Gentleman get on the Clapham omnibus, because it is a great opportunity to have his finger on the pulse of the British public. I think most will say that they want a fair system so that when they have worked, strived and built up a legacy for the next generation, they have something to hand down, because that is the most loving thing that people can do. I have not built up a family business or run a family farm, and I cannot imagine the stresses and strains that that involves, but these individuals understandably want to hand their businesses down to the next generation. We need them to do so, because if we do not have the farmers of tomorrow and the generation after that, we will not have on our tables the food that we enjoy today and that we hope our children will enjoy in years to come.

--- Later in debate ---

[Markus Campbell-Savours]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Arthur]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Lewis Cocking]

No, I will not give way. I have taken two interventions, and a number of Members want to speak.

If we want to unlock the next generation of entrepreneurs and back the people who give their blood, sweat and tears when they go out to work every day to make our country great and what it is today, this is what we need to do, and we have a clear plan to pay for it. We will cut Government spending by £71 billion, including by cutting overseas aid to £1 billion a year. We would reduce welfare spending by £36 billion and support young people into work, rather than a life on benefits. Alongside our pledges to scrap the family farm tax and scrap the family business tax, these are bold changes that will get our economy growing.

Enabling people to keep and pass on more of their own money is how we encourage people to invest, take risks and create new opportunities. Inheritance tax is not the only example. I regularly speak to constituents who feel that they are better off financially to refuse a promotion or more hours at work, because it does not make sense for them to work harder and get less. I have spoken to self-employed tradespeople who turn down work because they are too close to the VAT threshold. That just cannot be right. I speak to businesses and to people who work. It is absolutely crazy that they turn down employment and business because they will be worse off, paying more taxes under this Labour Government.

Until we shift the incentives in our economy—incentives that make a life on benefits more attractive than getting a job and that will put off businesses from creating new jobs—we will never improve the situation our country faces. Labour has a choice at the Budget on 28 October: they can copy the clear plan we have set out to make savings and cut welfare, or they can continue down the same road. Sadly, I just think they are not listening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

That will not plough any furrows with the farmers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency whom he has just described as the “idle rich”. What is more, he has got his figures wrong. He keeps throwing these figures around, but in fact that Tax Policy Associates think-tank that so many Labour colleagues seem to rely on has said that by the end of this decade one in six families will pay inheritance tax—many of them in his constituency, which I know well.

The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law) voted for the family farm and family business tax only a mere six times—he missed one of them—but he had the bright idea that farmers should get life insurance and planning advice. How on earth are farmers in his constituency on an income of around £20,000 a year going to afford that? It is yet more business taxes.

We also heard a reliance on Dan Neidle and his organisation Tax Policy Associates. I merely make the point, so that it is open and transparent, that Dan Neidle is a senior member of the Labour party and served for three years on its disciplinary committee.

The Conservatives are setting out the tough decisions to cut spending and help hard-working families up and down the country invest in their businesses and homes, ready to hand over to their families. People who have worked hard, paid their income tax, lived within their means and saved have not done so in order for the current Labour Chancellor to tax that all over again. They have done so because they have a deep desire to leave something to help the next generation prosper when they are no longer here.

[Dr Arthur]

Where domestic properties are concerned, of course more people are getting drawn into paying the tax because the thresholds have been frozen. I am sure that the Minister who came to the House in 2022 to say that the rates at that time were to be frozen until 2028 is currently at the Opposition’s Dispatch Box.

[Victoria Atkins]

I am so glad that the hon. Gentleman has brought that up, because not only did his first Chancellor extend the freeze, but she dragged pensioners into it. It is literally the worst of all words.

Let me reiterate the point I just made, because it is an important one. Under this Government, one in six families will be liable to pay inheritance tax by 2030. That means many more constituents being liable to pay the tax. The hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay said that our idea to axe inheritance tax on the family home was bonkers. I hate to break it to him, but Austria, Portugal, Sweden, Norway, Australia, Canada and New Zealand have all done the same.

The reason why we are doing it, and why this is so important, is that we know it is families who build this country; it is families who put down roots. They build a home, they run a farm or they start a business, and they bring prosperity and vibrancy to our villages and our towns. So I make the promise that the Conservatives will axe these taxes if Labour does not does so at the Budget, because only the Conservatives are the party of the family home, the family business and the family farm, and only the Conservatives will get Britain working again.

Road Safety

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 5th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Wild]

I agree. In the context of the debate, and following contact from constituents, I have been refreshing myself on the highway code, which I admit I had not done before even though I should have done. Awareness is important.

Speeding continues to be a major cause of accidents. However, many residents, Speedwatch groups and parish councils tell me that the process for reviewing or reducing speed limits on dangerous roads is too slow and too expensive, so I look forward to the Government’s new guidance on setting local speed limits, which I hope leads to genuine improvement.

Change needs to be driven by evidence, and in that context I refer to the proposal to reduce the drink-driving limit. Offences are typically caused by people who have greatly exceeded the limit, not by people who have had just a pint, so we must consider that proposal very carefully.

Young people are already waiting too long for driving tests, so I am concerned about the proposal to put in place a minimum six-month learning period. People who take intensive courses can be good drivers. The proposal could make the situation worse.

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

Will the hon. Member give way?

[James Wild]

I will not, given the time available.

A number of constituents who ride horses have contacted me with concerns about a lack of driver awareness and the prevalence of speeding and dangerous driving. They face heightened risk, particularly given the limited number of bridleways. The roads connecting bridleways have become more dangerous, too, with over 3,000 incidents in 2024, 80% of which were attributed to drivers passing unsafely. That is unacceptable, and it is why I support the proposals introduced by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), which include setting a required speed and distance for passing horses, and teaching equestrian safety in driving education. I hope that the Government will look favourably on those proposals.

I turn now to a topic that I have raised repeatedly in the House: sentences for driving offences, which must be tougher. In 2022, Parliament legislated for a maximum sentence of life in prison for death by dangerous driving, but sentences remain far too short, as was demonstrated in a case in which three members of a constituent’s family were killed. Dangerous driving should also result in longer disqualification. Less than 1% of those convicted of dangerous driving were banned from driving for life. Will the Government commit to a review of the sentencing guidelines for all dangerous driving offences, and consider how the Sentencing Council is applying those guidelines to reflect what we in this House consider necessary?

I am grateful to have had this opportunity briefly to speak about this important topic, and I hope that the Minister will respond to some of my points.

Women’s Safety: Walking, Wheeling, Cycling and Running

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Tuesday 27th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) for introducing the debate in such a compassionate way. As a wannabe runner—I cannot claim to be a runner—on behalf of myself and also my son and daughter, who are both keen runners, I want to thank all the people who have been talking about running.

In Edinburgh the gold standard for active travel routes were our canal path and converted railway tracks. Across the city, converted railway tracks offer routes away from busy roads and are used for thousands of journeys every year. In my constituency, a national cycle route runs alongside the Water of Leith—the route that used to be the Balerno branch line—and provides a space for active travellers to enjoy a quiet and beautiful route away from traffic. I use the route regularly and feel incredibly lucky to be able to enjoy it as I travel through my constituency. It is one of the things that defines my constituency.

I said the routes were the gold standard. That is because in 2021, the brutal death of Sarah Everard so far away from Edinburgh heightened an ongoing conversation about women’s safety in public spaces. In Edinburgh, the safety of our active travel routes came to the forefront. At this point I have to thank Councillor Mandy Watt, who showed amazing leadership and quite quickly allocated around £500,000 to light some of the routes through our parks. Routes along old railway lines and canal paths that offer enjoyable, smooth, green and quiet routes during the day change in the darkness. Even with lighting, without the passive surveillance found in busier public areas, I know that women often feel unable to use those routes, or feel unsafe when they do so. You, Ms Jardine, will know that from Roseburn path in your constituency.

During the winter when it is dark, often from around 3 pm to 9 am in Edinburgh, those routes become less accessible. This has a significant impact for those who rely on them to travel to work or for leisure. The last Edinburgh walking and cycling index showed a 7% difference in the perception of safety between men and women, with women feeling much less safe. In many cases this prevents women from integrating active travel into their daily lives—we have heard about that from other speakers. But it also pushes women who had previously walked or cycled to stop, and that is not good for them and not good for us or our economy. It is worth pointing out that all of us want to live in a town, city or village where more people walk, run or cycle. It is a tragedy that often these investments and changes can be so controversial, because it is something we all aspire to. It is about how we do it.

Too many women face harassment. One study in Edinburgh showed that around 20% of women cyclists stop after experiencing a single event of harassment. Unsafe routes decrease women’s ability to travel easily around the city, and no doubt reduce the mental and physical benefits that come with active travel. Ensuring safe routes in busier areas through the creation of separate, well-maintained cycle lanes on roads, for example, are one way to ensure that those who feel unsafe using our canals and former railway tracks are still able to actively travel during the winter months and at night. I want to thank the InfraSisters in Edinburgh who have run a fantastic campaign over many years—I am sure you are aware of their work, Ms Jardine.

As walking and cycling routes reach the city centre, it is vital that we have the correct architecture and infrastructure to ensure women’s safety in busier areas as they travel home or to work. In a public consultation in 2023, up to 80% of women who responded stated that they had experienced harassment, abuse or violence in public spaces in Edinburgh. Some people might think 80% is an exaggeration—I did when I first read that stat—but when we speak to women we find that it is absolutely not. I was ashamed to hear some of their experiences.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Is the hon. Member not absolutely shocked at how much this behaviour is normalised, and that we accept it as normal? When my male partner’s sons do not realise what happens, we continue to normalise it. Is it not time that we stopped?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

Absolutely. As a cyclist in Edinburgh, I have been verbally abused by drivers. On my social media pages, I am also often criticised for encouraging more people to walk and cycle. However, that is very different from abuse based on someone’s gender, which really goes to the heart of who they are, rather than simply what they are doing. I thank the hon. Lady for making that point.

The feeling of safety among women in Edinburgh varied seasonally, and according to lighting and the presence of passive surveillance from other citizens. Variation was also found between different groups, with disabled women and BAME women more likely to experience some form of harassment. That is in Scotland’s capital city; it is absolutely shameful.

There are seemingly small things that we can implement to improve the situation. Providing multiple points for road crossings, improving street lighting and increasing on-street passive surveillance can make a difference, and we now integrate those things into our urban design in Edinburgh.

The safety of women on public transport deserves a debate of its own, but ensuring that women can safely access public transport, either by walking and cycling, should also be actively considered. We must look at the routes between communities and key public transport hubs, ensuring that they are safe and, above all, well lit—bus stops, in particular. All those small changes can improve the safety of women as they walk around our city centres and outlying neighbourhoods.

I will quickly give two examples. Lighting was recently installed in Hailes Quarry Park in my constituency, which has made such a change to local travel. Colinton tunnel, which I am sure you are familiar with, Ms Jardine, and which is 120 metres long, also had lighting added. I thought nothing of it—it just used to be a dark tunnel —but many women came forward to say that having lighting in place had transformed the way they walked along that route. It was cheap, easy and transformational.

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.

Road Safety Strategy

Scott Arthur Excerpts

Thursday 8th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am not entirely sure I heard a question, but I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his words. I am proud to be part of a Government who listen and act.

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

I welcome the strategy published yesterday. It will save lives and, as a secondary impact, reduce insurance premiums, which is a non-trivial challenge for many people. I want to talk about the notion of a cognitive test that is set out in the strategy. In 2020, Xander Irvine, who was just three years old, was looking through a shop window in Edinburgh with his mother, when a car mounted the pavement, killing him and injuring his mother. The driver was aged 91 and she died around a year later of natural causes. Despite having dementia, she was able to renew her driving licence just a few months before the accident. The fatal accident inquiry was clear in its recommendation that cognitive tests should be introduced. I believe that all deaths on our roads are preventable; this death was absolutely preventable. The strategy talks about “developing options”, but will the Minister go further today and guarantee that we will deliver in this area? Will she go even further and talk about a timeline for delivering that change?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I dealt with the prevention of future deaths report relating to the utterly heartbreaking case that my hon. Friend refers to. While there is not currently a suitable test of cognitive ability to drive safely, I recognise the need for us to do further work on the issue. We plan to reconvene the older drivers taskforce and expert groups on this subject to consider suitable options. I do not intend to delay—I intend to take evidence and to take action.

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.