Finance (No. 2) Bill

Seamus Logan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

I rise to focus briefly on a small number of issues in the Bill and one associated with it—I will explain. I want to focus on how these issues will impact Scotland generally and my constituents in particular. Although the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury is no longer in his place, I note his comment that persistence pays off, which I think he made in reference to the intervention of the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart). I therefore hope that the Minister is listening to me in relation to this matter.

It is just over 100 days until April, when farmers across Scotland will face changes to agricultural property relief described by NFU Scotland as

“one of the most significant threats to Scottish family farms in a generation”.

They did not know that the changes were coming—no one did—because they were not in Labour’s manifesto. What was in the manifesto, on page 59, was a pledge to recognise that

“food security is national security. That is why we will champion British farming whilst protecting the environment.”

The sudden application of the new rules on inheritance was deeply unfair. No farmer expected it.

In Scotland, 98% of the total land area across the country is classified as rural, covering about 17% of the Scottish population. Land use in my constituency is classed as 76% agricultural, 18% forest or semi-natural and 3% built-up areas. There are 51,200 farm holdings in Scotland, and I accept that not all of them will be impacted by this policy, but studies by experts such as the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation have offered an alternative approach—one that is less harsh and that would generate similar levels of revenue, but it has been ignored by the Government. As I say, although not all farms will be affected by the change to APR, all farms could be, and maybe have been, impacted by having to take new and costly legal advice in the light of these unexpected changes.

The spousal transfer allowance change is welcome, but its addition points to a recognition at the Treasury. It is a shallow attempt to placate farmers in the light of the ensuing backlash and an admission that the 2024 Budget provisions were too harsh. The anti-forestalling clause mentioned by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael)—clause 62 of the Bill—and the associated schedule 12 are deeply cynical, as they penalise anyone who transfers their farm but dies within seven years, creating a potentially massive bill. Good for the Treasury; potentially disastrous for national food security. As the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) pointed out, if no transfer is made and the farmer dies before April 2026, the estate passes tax-free. That is the problem with the anti-forestalling clause.

I appreciate that Labour MPs are probably preoccupied with a different aspect of succession planning at the moment, but perhaps they could focus their minds on this issue. As has been said, Labour is paradoxically biting the hand that feeds it, but every family across these isles is feeling this effect.

[Dave Doogan]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree with me—and, I think I am right in saying, with the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick)—that agriculture in Wales and Scotland forms a very much larger part of our economies than it does in England, and it is therefore particularly objectionable that the Government did not consult the devolved Governments on this legislation? Does my hon. Friend further agree that farmers do not own wealth; they own value?

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We come to the final Back-Bench contribution. I just note that the Front Benchers wish to be on their feet by around 6.40 pm.