Clause 1

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Ind)]

I rise to speak in favour of Government amendment 24 and the associated amendments that will increase the 100% allowance cap for agricultural property relief from £1 million to £2.5 million. In December, I believe I closed my last speech on this issue with a plea for the Government to listen to my more reasonable rural colleagues and to change course. I said that it was not too late. It was a plea, but for many of my constituents it was a prayer, and much to the relief of many farmers, it was a prayer answered on 23 December.

It would be churlish of me not to thank the Government for seeing sense, as it would be not to thank the Members from across the House who have raised this issue consistently over the last year. While this amendment falls short of the full U-turn I would have preferred, today I will vote with the many rural Labour MPs who lobbied Ministers for many months to see this change. They may not have joined me in the No Lobby to vote against Budget resolution 50, but I have no doubt that we would not have seen a change of course without what I believe the Government have called their “constructive engagement”. I know what many of them did, and I hope in time that their constituents and their farmers know what they did, too.

I regret being placed in a position where I voted against the Government, but not to do so would have broken a promise. However, I believe the Government had more than ample time to reconsider this policy. To see colleagues whipped to vote for the measure days before the Government proposed amendments that some colleagues had called for over a year ago caused unnecessary pain. On that, I hope lessons are learned. Now, Whip or no Whip, I look forward to supporting this Government in their important task of helping all working people thrive.

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

I rise to address clause 62 and schedule 12. I, for one, cannot believe the self-congratulatory tone of so many contributions from across this Chamber. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), pointed out that Labour Members had five opportunities to change these rules, and only one Member—the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours)—voted to do so.

However, the initial change to APR in 2024 was described by NFU Scotland as

“devastating to the vast majority of farms and crofts”.

The concerns raised by farmers across Scotland, including a significant number in my constituency, were ignored by a Labour Government who appeared to be completely blind to the fundamentals of rural life and rural communities. When defending the decision in response to the Environment, Food and Rural Committee’s first report on the Government’s vision for farming, published in May last year, the UK Government said:

“Ministers from multiple Government departments have had several meetings with agricultural organisations on this matter since Autumn Budget 2024, including the National Farmers’ Union, the Tenant Farmers’ Association, the Country Land and Business Association, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the Ulster Farmers’ Union, NFU Cymru, NFU Scotland, and the Farmers’ Union of Wales”.

Here is the killer:

“After listening, the Government believes the approach and timescale set out for these reforms is an appropriate one.”

In the 2025 Budget, just a few months ago, the spousal transfer allowances were changed, and this was welcomed, but there was nothing further for worried farmers. As in so many areas in which this Government have been forced to U-turn, why did they not listen from the start? Is everything we say on these Benches to be dismissed as political rhetoric? Was it arrogance? Look where this has led—to a Prime Minister and a Government regarded by the public as the worst ever. We do not need a Government who listen later, if they feel like it. We need a Government who listen from the start. We need an end to the sound of screeching tyres from the Government machine as it performs another U-turn that could have been avoided. If

“food security is national security”,

as Labour said in its manifesto, why did Labour feel it was acceptable to make farmers face insecurity about their livelihoods, and the country face food insecurity in the face of a growing international crisis? After the recently announced threshold changes, it was very disappointing to see the failure of the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury to offer an apology to the people who produce our food.

The anti-forestalling clause in the Bill continues to pose a perverse incentive. It penalises anyone who transfers their farm but dies within seven years, creating a substantial IHT bill and potentially triggering capital gains tax. If no transfer is made and the farmer dies before April 2026, the estate passes tax-free. That creates an appalling situation where terminally ill or elderly farmers, especially those unlikely to live for a further seven years, face perverse choices: keep the farm and hope to die before April this year; sell the farm, with a potential loss of food production to the nation; or transfer the farm in the usual way and saddle their children with a huge tax bill. No set of tax measures should—nor should this Bill —create such a situation. Of course these IHT rules apply elsewhere, but this is where we see Labour failing to understand what it is dealing with. A working farm is like no other business. What it produces concerns everyone, not some segment or niche area of the economy.

In conclusion, the NFU Scotland president, Andrew Connon, stated:

“The anti-forestalling clause, in particular, is morally indefensible. No tax policy should ever place a terminally ill farmer in the position of being financially better off dead than alive.”

The House will have an opportunity later on to protect farm production from that perverse incentive; that is what my amendment would achieve. The amendment before us tonight gives us an opportunity to change this. If we fail to do that tonight, I will seek to bring my amendment back on Report.

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

I am speaking in favour of the amendments and new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), and against the changes to APR in general, and its less conspicuous but equally ugly twin sister, the changes to BPR, because they are downright destructive to the economy in rural places like North Shropshire.

The Conservatives showed that they took farming communities for granted, presiding over botched trade deals and an unfair transition from the old basic payment system to the environment management scheme, and leaving the farming budget with an underspend of hundreds of millions of pounds, but the new Labour Government have shown that they do not understand rural communities whatsoever. It is utterly inexcusable that family farms have been put through over a year of uncertainty and anguish since the Government first announced changes to APR. I have had the pleasure of visiting many farms and attending roundtables with farmers in my constituency. The uncertainty, anxiety and fear caused to them and their families because of the changes has been appalling for Shropshire, not only because those farmers are part of the economic backbone of the economy, but because they are part of the community.

As we have disputed with the official Opposition, the Liberal Democrats were the first to call out and oppose the unfair family farm tax in last year’s Budget. We have been proud to stand alongside our farming communities in campaigning against it ever since. December’s U-turn, which increased the farm inheritance tax threshold from £1 million to £2.5 million, has been hard won, and we are grateful to all the farmers who have fought tirelessly to achieve it. It is a step in the right direction, and it would be churlish not to acknowledge that, but having spoken to farmers in my constituency, I can say that the change just does not go far enough.

I will focus on the dairy industry, because North Shropshire has a lot of dairy farmers. Dairy farming in the modern era is capital-intensive. You need expensive assets, like automated milking systems, cooling units, feed systems, housing and slurry storage. They are all essential for operating the modern dairy farm, but incomes are low and volatile. The reality is that the industry is becoming increasingly unprofitable, and many smaller dairy farms have already sold up in North Shropshire. To make matters worse, milk prices have recently fallen below the cost of production, while the price of feed and energy and labour costs remain historically high.

Last week, two North Shropshire dairy farmers outlined the crisis that their sector has been put in. As partners in their farm, they told me that even with December’s increase in the threshold, the family farm tax incentivises them to keep their business small—they describe the tax as putting the dairy industry in a straitjacket. Because they have borrowed to finance their assets and capital expenditure, these farms are in a position where they are worrying about servicing their debts, maintaining production and remaining viable, yet the value of their land and machinery is in excess of the cap. There is already no money left for future capital expenditure, and now they have to plan to be able to pay off IHT in the future as well, which will not be achievable for them without selling parts of the farm to big players whose methods will be far less sustainable and worse for the environment than their current low-input model. Ending capital investment not only affects family farms and their growth, but puts our nation’s agricultural equipment producers and suppliers out of business, damaging growth and reducing our food security.

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.

Budget: Press Briefings

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

A number of the hon. Lady’s colleagues have asked the same question today, and my answer has been consistent throughout, which is that I am not going to comment on the ongoing Budget process.

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

The chaos and confusion at the heart of this Government are deeply damaging to Scotland, to its economy and to its public services. The constant leaks, briefings and U-turns flowing from the Treasury make the Scottish Government’s task all the more difficult, and this is worsened by the Chancellor’s refusal, to date, to meet the Scottish Secretary for Finance. Can the Minister succeed in persuading the Chancellor to have this meeting, please?

[James Murray]

In my role as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, I have met Ministers in the Scottish Government to discuss the fiscal situation. We have a fiscal forum every quarter, with representatives from the Scottish Government as well as from Wales and Northern Ireland, and that is the right way for us to have routine discussions about matters of shared interest.

Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. I was delighted that he broadened his comments beyond the wine industry because, of course, the lessons we can learn from the whisky industry will apply to the burgeoning wine industry. I also acknowledge the contribution from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur). I agree with many of his comments about the health implications, but I also acknowledge, for once, a Scottish Labour MP praising the Scottish Government rather than criticising them.

The impact of alcohol duty is being felt far beyond the UK wine sector. It is critically affecting the nation’s biggest food and drink export: Scotch whisky. Despite its proven value to the economy—it supports more than 66,000 jobs across the country and had an export value of £5.4 billion last year—the industry now stands under a mounting threat that has been created by current Government policy.

In just two years, Scotch whisky has faced a 14% increase in duty, meaning that 70% of the average cost of a bottle of whisky represents tax. On top of that, producers are under immense pressure from other rising input costs, higher employment expenses and global market pressures, including damaging US tariffs that threaten stability and market share. Despite that, the expected revenues from duty increases have perversely failed to materialise. We know that the Government want to put growth at the heart of their strategy, but last year’s falling revenues show that excessive taxation is hurting both the industry and the Treasury. That also applies to the growing wine sector in this country. I expect that is partly to do with climate change, although I do not expect that my constituency in the north of Aberdeenshire will see any vineyards in the near future.

The Scotch Whisky Association has rightly described the current excise duty system as broken. It is now up to the Chancellor to create a stable and supportive environment for the industry by freezing excise duty. With more than 1,000 jobs lost since the last Budget, it is time for the Government to recognise the counterproductive nature of this policy and set it right in the upcoming autumn Budget.

Significant progress is being made in Scotland, as discussions between the First Minister and President Trump during his state visit highlighted the potential for a trade deal that would strengthen ties between the US whiskey and Scotch whisky industries. The Chancellor must now show the same commitment by prioritising the Scotch whisky sector and recognising that supporting its growth means maintaining the duty freeze to allow for this world-renowned industry, and hopefully the wine sector, to thrive.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

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

1. Whether she plans to review the Barnett formula for Scotland.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)]

There are currently no plans to review the operation of the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula has stood the test of time because it is simple and efficient, and it provides a clear and certain outcome. It is a key part of the arrangements for pooling and sharing risks and resources across the United Kingdom.

[Seamus Logan]

We know that if the Government today pass their disgraceful, discriminatory and, some say, illegal cuts to disability support, that will almost certainly lead to a reduction in the Scottish budget as a result of the Barnett formula. That is a deliberate choice that Scottish Labour MPs will be making if they support these cuts, and for which they must answer to their constituents. Will the Chancellor or the Minister tell them, this House and, indeed, the nation exactly how many millions of pounds they will voting to take out of the pockets of disabled and vulnerable people in Scotland, many of whom voted for Labour almost a year ago?

[Darren Jones]

One thing I can tell the Scottish people, and indeed the House, is that it is this Labour Government who have given the largest real-terms increase in spending to the Scottish Government since devolution began—billions and billions of pounds of extra money is going to the Scottish National party Government in Holyrood. On devolved matters, it is for the SNP Government to be accountable for the delivery of public services to people in Scotland, where they are failing on everything from the NHS to welfare and the economy.

Agricultural and Business Property Relief

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart]

At the very least, as my right hon. Friend says and as a colleague touched on earlier, tweaks could be made to this policy to stop the most egregious negative impact of it on people who have planned in good faith all their lives for a position and are now in no position whatever to change things. It is not just the elderly—everyone looks for the elderly person in their 80s or 90s to pass on, but I met another constituent whose mother died aged 41. These things happen, sadly, and what does that do to a farm? Is it holding hundreds of thousands of pounds in the bank when there are 200 and something acres?

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

The right hon. Member will possibly be familiar with my constituency—one of the richest farming areas in the UK. The Treasury continues to insist that only about 520 estates a year will claim APR in the way that it is describing, and it has set the threshold at £1 million. Does the right hon. Member agree that the Minister needs to provide clear evidence for this threshold, and is he aware that at the evidence session in December, the NFU claimed that the actual figure, rather than 520, is 2,000 estates involved?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The expert valuers who do this for a living have come out with different numbers, but they are all violently different from the Government’s assumptions. Even on the basis of the Government’s own figures, if I take Beverley and Holderness—as a rural constituency—it would be a farm a year. And of course, everyone is affected. They are all having to spend and bring advisers into the room. They are sitting there, as a small business that might be making less than £25,000 a year, and having to pay £1,000 an hour to get the expertise in the room to advise them on something that, sure, depending on the longevity of family members, may not have an impact for 15, 20 or—hopefully—30 years, but none the less they are spending that money now because of the uncertainty of this policy, which is very ill advised.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Does the Minister agree that in the Government’s haste to target tax avoiders such as Jeremy Clarkson and others, as has been mentioned, they have actually caught a lot of small and medium-sized farmers in their sights, in a completely irresponsible way?

[James Murray]

Although our policy should discourage the kind of tax planning to which I think the hon. Gentleman refers, the policy is broader than that. It is necessary to balance significant relief from inheritance tax on family farms with the need to fix the public finances, and that is the balanced decision that we have taken with this policy.

Of course, the decision on this tax policy sits alongside the Government’s wider decisions at Budget 2024. There is £5 billion over two years for farming and land management in England, which will help restore stability and confidence in the sector. That includes the largest ever budget directed at sustainable food production and nature recovery in our country’s history. Despite the difficult fiscal inheritance, £60 million of funding has also been prioritised for the farm recovery fund, to support farmers impacted by severe wet weather over the last year.

Winter Fuel Payment

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention. He makes an important point, although I would say that I welcomed the Chancellor’s commitment last week to work with older people’s charities and local authorities to raise awareness of pension credit. None the less, he is exactly right that many people will have this benefit taken away without knowing that there is pension credit for which they are eligible and should claim.

As the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has highlighted, the DWP has assumed that the uptake of pension credit will increase by just five percentage points, and that will still exclude around 700,000 pensioners. Have the Government made a proper assessment of what the impact will be if uptake of pension credits increases by more than that amount? I continue to call for assurance that the Government will ensure that all those eligible for pension credit claim both the benefit itself and the winter fuel payment.

We will be voting against the scrapping of this stream of support for pensioners. Although we recognise that the Government face difficult choices given the appalling mess left by the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats will continue to advocate for the necessity of winter fuel payments. The mismanagement of our economy by the outgoing Conservative Government has left formidable challenges and we understand that undoing that damage will not be easy.

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

Whatever fiscal pressures are being addressed here today, we have heard about the additional deaths that could possibly result from this measure. Does the hon. Member share my disgust at some Members celebrating the result of the previous vote as if it were a football match?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. I am afraid that I cannot comment because I did not see that, but I thank him for raising it.

It is not right for the consequences of the decisions of the outgoing Conservative Government and this burden to be carried by some of the most vulnerable in our society. Those with the broadest shoulders should carry a heavier burden. Liberal Democrats have set out detailed proposals to tackle fuel poverty and we are calling on the Government to look at them very seriously. That includes steps such as: launching an emergency home energy upgrade programme, with free insulation and heat pumps for low-income households; introducing a social tariff for the most vulnerable to provide targeted energy discounts for vulnerable households; and implementing a proper windfall tax on the super-profits of oil and gas producers and traders, to raise vital revenue. We have also called on the Government to tackle the wider cost of living crisis, including by investing an extra £1 billion a year in our farmers to bring down food prices, increasing the carer’s allowance and expanding it to more carers, and removing the two-child limit and the benefit cap.

More than 2 million pensioners are currently living in poverty. They have had a tremendously difficult time during the cost of living crisis, dealing with record high energy bills and eye-watering food costs. That is why the Liberal Democrats are proud to have introduced the triple lock when we were in government, lifting countless vulnerable pensioners out of poverty, and why we are strongly committed to ensuring it remains in place. Pensioners deserve to have the support and the security of knowing that the triple lock will be there in the long term.

We acknowledge the dire economic situation the new Government have inherited, yet we have heard warning calls from sector representatives, including Age UK, Disability Rights UK and many pensioners themselves, regarding the damage that this cut might cause. As the Government try to clear up the Conservative party’s mess, they must ensure that that does not come at the expense of pensioners and families who will struggle to heat their homes this winter.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Seamus Logan Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. Let us just be clear that the pay recommendations today are in line with private sector pay. These are just the pay deals that are received by the majority of workers in the private sector. My hon. Friend is right that we owe a debt of gratitude to our frontline workers, who got us through the pandemic and so many other challenges over the last few years, and they deserve to be paid properly for their work.

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

During the recent election campaign, we in the SNP repeatedly warned about an £18 billion hole in the Labour party’s spending plans. Now that the Chancellor has confirmed that today, will she apologise to those voters in Scotland who supported the Labour party leader in Scotland when he said:

“Read my lips, no austerity”?

Will she also reverse the 9% cut in Scotland’s capital allocation, please?

[Rachel Reeves]

I am not sure if hon. Gentleman was paying attention. The £22 billion black hole is this year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies was warning about a black hole of £18 billion over the lifetime of the Parliament. Those are two very different things and both of them can be true. What we are showing today is an in-year gap of £22 billion that the hon. Gentleman did not know about, that no one on this side of the House knew about, that the OBR did not know about, and that the country did not know about. This is new information that is being published today, above and beyond what anyone knew when we were campaigning in the election.