Finance (No. 2) Bill

Dave Doogan Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Tomlinson]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I look forward to contributions from Members on both sides of the House on the various measures in the Finance Bill. On the point that the hon. Member raises, this Government considered really carefully the reforms that were announced at the Budget last year, and have put forward changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief. There is an additional £1 million allowance—an allowance that was made transferable between spouses in this Budget—and also a 50% discount on the inheritance tax rate, so tax on that higher allowance will be at 20%, rather than 40%.

As well as making changes to lift children out of poverty, this Government have chosen to increase the national living wage from 1 April 2026 by 4.1% to £12.71 an hour, and to increase the national minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds to £10.85.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dan Tomlinson]

I happily give way—I look forward to it.

[Dave Doogan]

The Minister will know that for the vast majority of employees in Scotland, the increase in the national living wage is redundant, because it is less than the Scottish living wage. He talks about the things that the Government increased in the Budget; was it their intention to increase unemployment by 25% as a result of their jobs tax?

[Dan Tomlinson]

This Budget will lift thousands of children in Scotland out of poverty, because of decisions that we have made. This Government have made £10 billion more spending available to the Scottish Government, yet we still see public services failing up and down Scotland; the NHS is not working as well as it should north of the border.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. It shows a complete lack of understanding of business, and it reflects the lack of true business experience on the Government Front Bench. It also goes right to the core of the difference in principles and beliefs between the two principal parties in this Chamber. We on the Opposition Benches believe that if someone works hard, saves hard and has something left at the end of their life, they should be allowed—because they love those who they wish to look after in their absence—to pass on that inheritance without the taxman taking a huge, disproportionate amount of what they have accumulated. All the Labour party believes in is mounding up ever more debt in a statist world in which that debt is to be passed on to future generations to be paid back.

We believe in supporting the little platoon, as Burke put it—the families that together form a mighty army. We believe in personal responsibility and for that to be rewarded.

[Dave Doogan]

rose—

[Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

rose—

[Sir Mel Stride]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman and then I will come to the hon. Lady.

[Dave Doogan]

Does the shadow Chancellor bristle like I do and like my constituents in Angus and Perthshire Glens who are engaged in farm businesses and agribusiness more generally when they hear Ministers make a false equivalence in talking about the generous rates of agricultural property relief compared with the wider economy and how long people will get to pay? They are making a false equivalence between someone inheriting their mother’s house after her death and transferring the family farm from one generation to the next. They are completely different propositions, are they not?

[Sir Mel Stride]

As I have to say so often following his interventions, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There is a huge difference between the position of a dynamic, growing organism of a company and the other situation that he has described. Loading up these taxes on the death of the principal owner or one of the significant owners of a business means loading it up with uncertainty, and quite conceivably the business must be broken up as a consequence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

Yes, indeed—and they did. We have seen it. All the evidence is there, and it is happening now, regardless of the argument from Ministers as to what percentage of farms will be affected. We can see it in all the stats. Those stats are available—particularly, I would have hoped, to Treasury Ministers to find out what the real-world impact of this policy is. The real-world impact is that we have seen a drop in investment in the farming industry. That is a disaster.

It may be that the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway is standing alone, but let us look at the enthusiasm on the Labour Benches for the Second Reading of this major Finance Bill that is supposed to be doing such good for the country. There are more than 400 Labour Members, but they are not exactly here to cheer it on. I think they—and, I hope, the Minister—are realising just how counterproductive this is. The one thought I will try to implant above all is those numbers, which mean that it is absurd.

Madam Deputy Speaker, imagine generally being a business owner today, and not necessarily in farming. You hike your way up the mountain to get to success, wading through an eternal shower of tax rises and hacking your way through a jungle of red tape. Then, on your death bed, you are met not first by the grim reaper but by the Chancellor, armed with one final sting: a double tax bill for your children. This is the reality facing family businesses: if the Government cut business property relief next year, that will lead to a double tax bill.

I asked the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who opened the debate, to comment on how that double taxation works. He was unable to respond off the top of his head to my specific numbers, which is entirely understandable, but I hope that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, armed and perhaps refreshed by the brilliant people in the Box behind her, will be able in summing up to address the specifics of the tax reality for a business faced by the double tax bill that thousands of sons and daughters will receive when their entrepreneurial mum or dad passes away.

From April, the 100% inheritance tax relief that family businesses rely on will be capped at just £1 million; anything above that will be taxed at 20%. Take a small company worth £11 million: the inheritance tax bill alone will be £2 million. But as far as I am aware, the sons and daughters of most entrepreneurs in Beverley and Holderness do not have £2 million tucked away down the back of the sofa. To pay that bill, which is a tax not on the business but on the people who inherit the business, as they are outside the business—I am not sure whether people have focused on this enough—they will be forced to extract that money from the business itself, usually in the form of dividends, and those dividends are taxed at rates approaching 40%. So a £2 million inheritance tax bill becomes a £3.3 million hit on the business, with £2 million to pay the Chancellor and another £1.3 million to pay—oh yes—the Chancellor, simply because the money was invested in jobs, equipment or the business overall rather than left idle.

[Dave Doogan]

Is the right hon. Gentleman as concerned as I am that this is a spreadsheet Budget concerned with little more than the number in the bottom right-hand corner? That is why everything is unravelling so catastrophically. On his BPR point, I have nothing against PLCs, but does he agree further that businesses that are owned by families and rooted in communities spend their investments locally, support local organisations and charities, employ locally and have their profits going back in locally, and that this is devastating jeopardy for those businesses?

[Graham Stuart]

As so often, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Again, the talk is of hitting the fat cats and big businesses, but it is the huge corporates that will benefit. They will snap up the farmland and the small business. This is not fair taxation; it is irrational double taxation.

The consequences of this policy are real. If the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan)—I will call him my hon. Friend, if I may—is right about the Treasury being obsessed with the bottom right-hand corner, I hope that if no other argument weighs with the Minister, this might. A report by the CBI suggests that far from raising the welcome £1.4 billion forecast by the Treasury, the changes are likely to reduce tax revenues from family-owned businesses by £1.8 billion by 2030. That is yet another example of this innumerate Government having the exact opposite outcome from the one they wished, as investment falls, businesses restructure and growth is choked off. Instead of supporting the Government’s claim to be pro-business and pro-worker, this change could cost more than 200,000 jobs, on top of the 200,000 that the Chancellor has already cost the country. That is money sucked out of the economy and into Labour’s bottomless black hole. The impact will be felt directly in Beverley and Holderness, where it is expected to put 237 local jobs at risk, according to the CBI. Those are apprentices—

--- Later in debate ---

[John Grady]

I am going to make some progress if I may. Given the public finance situation that we face, I am afraid it is incumbent on Opposition Members to come up with some credible alternatives. But of course we know what their credible alternatives are; they are the sort of decisions made by the gravediggers Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng—back to Shakespeare.

Control of public finances is one part of the equation. The other is growth, and the Government are promoting growth in the economy through things like the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which was shamefully delayed in the other place.

I suppose we should talk about Reform’s proposals for growth. Private sector investment—like many Labour Members, I have worked in business—is supported by contract law, the rule of law, confidence in the independence of our courts, and the reliability of the Government. The European convention on human rights also has an important part to play, particularly article 1 of protocol 1: the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions. Those Members who argue for the complete unilateral withdrawal from the ECHR may wish to consider the catastrophic effect on the economy of such a step. In the summer, Reform threatened investors with the cancellation of contracts for difference. That shows that a Reform Government would be happy to rip up contracts and to shred Britain’s reputation as a place of stability. I fail to see how that would promote economic growth. It would mean higher bills for consumers, and would make the country poorer.

I welcome the Chancellor’s reforms to gambling taxes. There is a clear distinction between going to the bingo and gambling on the horses—I will disclose that in the past I have enjoyed quite a few trips to the races—and online gambling and gaming, which, as we heard in the Treasury Committee, cause serious harm. It is essential that we start to tackle this issue. I realise that it is not a matter for the Treasury, but the marketing of online gambling and gaming needs to be reviewed, and I encourage the Treasury to act robustly against any evasion and black market activity.

I have heard some mention of choices today. This Budget and the Bill put in place steps to remove the two-child limit. My constituency of Glasgow East has some of the highest levels of child poverty in the United Kingdom. This is a disgrace and a scar on our society.

[Dave Doogan]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Grady]

I will make some progress—I am mindful of Madam Deputy Speaker’s time limit.

Child poverty blights the lives of children in Glasgow East, and the levels of child poverty are a moral outrage. The Conservatives’ approach is to refer to my constituents as being on “Benefits Street”, which reveals the contempt that they have for my constituents, and Reform UK Members have been speaking about children in my seat with real racist malice. I say that it is a privilege to be a Member of Parliament for those children and I am proud that this Bill will help to lift hundreds of thousands of children out of poverty. I am proud of our Labour Government’s actions on child poverty and I fully support the Bill, which raises the funds to reduce child poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

I can only guess that Reform UK is polling quite high in Glasgow East. On his substantive point about child poverty, is the hon. Member relieved that his constituents in Glasgow East are benefiting from the fact that under the SNP, Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom where child poverty rates are falling?

[John Grady]

Perhaps Reform UK is polling high in Perthshire as well. Leaving that to one side, let me tell the hon. Member what my constituents in Glasgow East are not relieved about: record NHS waiting lists, an SNP Government who block nuclear developments that would bring in hundreds of thousands of pounds a year through the creation of good employment, excellent jobs and growth in the economy, and an SNP Government who are anti-business and anti-growth, and who have just spent 18 years running Scotland into the ground. That is what concerns my constituents and that is why next year Anas Sarwar will be the next First Minister and create optimism for Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The SNP will not support a Second Reading. This Bill derives from a Budget that failed to deliver for Scotland and does nothing to move the dial for the households hammered by the cost of living crisis.

Scotland was relying on a step change from this Labour Government—on investment in public services, jobs and industry, and real action on energy bills—but none of that has come to pass. Instead, we have a dog’s dinner Budget that results in an increase in funding for Scotland that does not even cover half of the Scottish Government’s exposure to the national insurance increase across the public sector, and a resource block grant that increases only 0.5% per annum on average across the spending review period.

Thankfully, the clauses on income tax largely do not concern Scottish taxpayers, who benefit from the SNP’s judicious and progressive income tax rates in Scotland. Those in Scotland earning less than around £30,300 are expected to pay slightly less income tax than they would elsewhere in the UK, with the freezes to higher, advanced and top-rate thresholds estimated to affect only the highest 26% of earners. Someone earning more than £35,000 in Scotland will pay just 90p more in income tax per week than someone in the rest of the United Kingdom, while benefiting from Scotland’s unique social contract, whereby, under the SNP, we collectively fund prescription charges, bridge tolls, the Scottish child payment, tuition fees, under-22 bus travel, the baby box, personal care, publicly owned railways and publicly owned Scottish Water, which is the best-performing water company in the United Kingdom. Not bad value for 90p a week.

[John Grady]

The Scottish public finances have been aided by a record budget settlement from the UK Government, but there is a £5 billion black hole in them. Might it be the case that after 18 years of the SNP, some responsibility for such matters lies closer to home, perhaps in Edinburgh?

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Gentleman was obviously not listening. The increase to the block grant is spread over the entire spending review period—five years—and it does not cover more than half of the cost faced by the Scottish Government as a result of the increase in employers national insurance imposed by the same Chancellor. I am glad that I got the opportunity to say that twice.

Energy bills have gone up by £340 under this Government, despite the fact that they were supposed to fall by £300. That is what people voted for—that is the prospectus that Labour gave them—and the Government are not taking it seriously. They are coming back with a £150 reduction to energy bills, which is coming out of general taxation. As sleight of hand goes, that is not very slick. The money comes out of people’s standing charge, but goes directly on their general taxation.

In the interests of time, I will not dwell on agricultural property relief; I have said a fair bit during interventions, and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) will contribute on that issue.

[Graham Stuart]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way while he is on the subject of energy. Of course, what should have been in the Bill was an end to the additional tax levy, because there are no sky-high profits any more, there are no excess taxes that need to be paid, and 1,000 people a month are losing their job in the oil and gas industry.

[Dave Doogan]

The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my next paragraph. The energy profits levy should be coming to an end, but it has been extended by this Labour Government until 2030. That has caused 100 job losses from Harbour Energy, and it is causing 1,000 job losses every month, according to Offshore Energies UK. We are in this situation because the Prime Minister lacks the mettle to get rid of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. That is one job getting protected in Whitehall, but it is costing 1,000 jobs a month in Scotland. That is the Labour way, and it always will be.

On electric vehicles, this thruppence a mile probably does not sound that much to those who live in Chelsea or Kensington, but it will cost an awful lot more to those who live in Angus and Perthshire Glens. I get the politics of it: half of the entire Labour membership lives within Greater London, and the other half lives in other English cities, and in Glasgow and Cardiff. They probably think it is a tremendous wheeze to make people in my constituency subsidise the tax on the Labour membership’s electric vehicles, but people are smarter than that. People who live in the countryside can add up, and they know that this Government’s attack on their electric vehicle taxes does not add up. They are being swindled by a Labour Government.

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation is slightly unfair to those 80 or 90 Labour MPs who represent rural areas, and it is worth paying tribute to the speeches by the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), and for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours). They have spoken out against this mean, callous agricultural property relief measure, and they have done a brave thing by doing so. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree?

[Dave Doogan]

I absolutely do agree. I am in full accord with those Members’ bravery on the APR, but I am not sure how that links directly to 3p a mile for electric vehicles. The point is made, though.

The preamble to the Budget was hugely challenging and had a direct consequence on the markets. It caused people to freeze employment and investment in their businesses, and it caused pensioners to cash in their pensions. I am pleased that the SNP was the first to call on the Financial Conduct Authority to investigate the Chancellor’s behaviour, and I hope that the FCA’s position changes. Despite all that, Scotland’s economy remains one of the best performing parts of the United Kingdom. Since 2007, per-person growth under the SNP has been 10.2%. That compares to 6.8% in the UK. We lead the whole of the UK, with the exception of London, for foreign direct investment, and a NatWest report recently confirmed that Scotland had one of the highest start-up rates in the UK in the first two quarters of this year.

Employment across the UK is 75%, but as I mentioned in my intervention on the Minister, unemployment in the UK has risen from 4.1% to 5.1% since this Labour Government grasped power last year. Thankfully for the people of Scotland, unemployment is 25% lower in Scotland, at 3.8%. I am sure that fact will not be lost on the good people of Glasgow East. Next month, the Scottish Government will deliver their Budget and continue to build on our success, but the SNP will not be voting for this Bill’s Second Reading. We will not be party to the injudicious and unjust damage that will be inflicted on businesses and households by the grabbing hand of Labour through this Bill. The people will have their verdict on this risible Chancellor and her bilging outflow of fiscal calamity in May 2026, specifically in Scotland and Wales, and in English councils. I, for one, look forward to the Government getting their just desserts.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)]

The shadow Financial Secretary, the hon. Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies), took the time to mention Father Christmas and Tinder. I thought he might also have taken a moment to welcome the fourth major trade deal secured by this Government and signed today with South Korea, which is set to boost our economy by £400 million, but that was obviously too much to ask.

It is an honour to close this Second Reading debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill. I thank the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury for opening the debate, and all right hon. and hon. Members who made contributions. I look forward to hearing further contributions during the rest of the Bill’s passage.

Before I turn to the points made during today’s debate, let me be clear about the purpose of the Bill. I will frame it in the context of choices, because so many hon. Members who have contributed to the debate have done the same. Put simply, the Bill delivers the fair, responsible and necessary choices required to strengthen our economy and cut borrowing, to return our public services to health, to back British entrepreneurs and to make people better off. Those are the choices that this Government are making.

[Dave Doogan]

On that point, will the Minister give way?

[Lucy Rigby]

Not yet.

We have heard absolutely nothing from the Opposition that acknowledges that they made the wrong choices. Indeed, what we heard just now from the shadow Financial Secretary and earlier from the shadow Chancellor was a masterclass in selective amnesia. People would be forgiven for thinking that Members on the shadow Treasury Bench were not living in this country during their period of Government, let alone running it. They have conveniently forgotten that their choices gave us appallingly low productivity, threadbare public services, ballooning welfare spending and real wage stagnation. Those were their choices, and it is little wonder that they do not to want to remember them, let alone be judged on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lucy Rigby]

I am afraid to tell the right hon. Gentleman that employment is rising in every single year of the forecast.

My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East (John Grady) raised the importance of getting debt and borrowing down. I could not agree more. There is nothing progressive whatsoever about spending over £100 billion a year on servicing our debt. That is more than five times our annual policing budget. It is money that could be spent on schools, hospitals and the urgent public service renewal that this country so desperately needs. That is exactly why, under this autumn Budget, borrowing falls in every year of the forecast, and we are bringing the national debt under control. The Chancellor is putting in place the fastest rate of fiscal consolidation in the G7, and she is doubling the headroom to £21.7 billion.

[Dave Doogan]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will she concede that approximately three quarters of the last three hours of debate on this Bill has been devoted to the egregious family farm tax, including two noble and articulate contributions from Labour Beck Benchers, which took some bravery? Will she take that message back to the Chancellor, and get her to finally scrap the family farm tax?

[Lucy Rigby]

It is not a concession to acknowledge that that was the topic of much of the debate. We are more than aware of the strength of feeling on inheritance tax and the cost pressures that farmers are under, and I appreciate the compassion with which hon. Members have made their arguments. I remind them that that is why the Government came forward with the changes announced at the Budget just a few weeks ago. Following those changes to both APR and BPR, surviving spouses can pass on double the tax-free allowance, making the system more fair and simple for farmers.

A core part of strengthening our economy is about backing British businesses to reach their full potential. That means backing British innovation and aspiration and giving entrepreneurs what they need to start up, scale up, list and grow here in the UK. That is why this Bill significantly expands the enterprise management incentive scheme limits to maintain the world-leading nature of this relief.

Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

I just ask the hon. Gentleman what he thinks the effect of increasing taxes on hard-working people does for poverty. Any economist will say it drives poverty up.

There is also the question of the farm tax, with the changes under the inheritance tax regime. In the run-up to the general election, the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, then in his shadow position, looked the National Farmers Union president Tom Bradshaw in the eye and said that, at least on that count, farmers had nothing to fear from a future Labour Government. Well, that lasted about five minutes before they changed and the Chancellor changed her position. That will cause untold misery to farmers up and down our country. It will mean that farms that have been passed down generation to generation over many years will now fall into the tax net and potentially have to be broken up.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

We know that there are serious questions over this Chancellor’s alleged experience in the financial services sector. We can see that she has no experience in either industry or commerce. Perhaps the worst of her detriments, however, is her clinical lack of empathy, seeming totally unable to connect cause and effect. That is why she has allowed the disastrous—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. May I respectfully remind the hon. Member that comments need to be about what is in the substantive motion and not wider matters?

[Dave Doogan]

Indeed. In terms of that conduct and those decisions that have been made, that is most evident in the egregious family farm tax—a betrayal of the producers of our food, no less—and the, let us call it, management of market-sensitive information before the Budget, which had a material effect on the economy of these islands.

[Sir Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman makes excellent points, and I will come to the issue of the market-moving effects of some of the comments made by the Chancellor. On the point that he rightly raises about the impact on people’s lives, these are real jobs. These are people struggling with real businesses. These are farmers getting up early in the morning, going out, working and doing what they know to be right, yet they are weighed down by the decisions taken by the Government.

Labour said that it had no intention of means-testing the winter fuel payment. There was no mention of it in its manifesto during the last general election, yet within a very short period of time, that is precisely what it did. Before Labour Members get excited about excluding millionaires and multimillionaires from those payments, the reality is that about 80% of pensioners living below the poverty line were impacted by that decision, which would have only entrenched and driven up poverty.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

I did not expect the Minister to give way. He says that energy bill payers in the UK are now £150 better off, forgetting that energy bills are currently almost £600 higher than Labour promised they would be at the election. Ofgem has come in with an additional £108 for infrastructure charges. Energy bills will go up again in January and again in April. Does he want to reflect on what he has said? Is that really the record on which he is standing?

[James Murray]

I am unclear whether the hon. Gentleman supports our £150 off energy bills and our extra £150 off for those 6 million households on the lowest income. That will benefit people right across the UK with the cost of living challenges they face. We know that that is what matters to people right across Britain.

Instead of focusing on what this Budget means for people across Britain, we heard the shadow Chancellor’s comments on a motion that focuses so much on process. While I accept that process is very important, it has been covered extensively in recent weeks—indeed, most recently by the Chancellor in the Treasury Committee this morning—so let me put on record our response to the motion and to the comments that the shadow Chancellor made about process.

Let me begin by again addressing the speech that the Chancellor made on 4 November. When the Chancellor addressed the country that morning, her purpose was simple: to give the British people an honest sense of the circumstances we were facing and the principles that would guide her as she took decisions at the Budget. She wanted to highlight the challenges that our country was facing and her priorities in the face of those challenges, and that is exactly what she did.

Following the OBR’s review of productivity—the review of the impact of 14 years of the Conservatives being in power—the Chancellor knew that we faced a downgrade. To understand the scale of the impact, members of the Opposition need only to consult the Budget document. There, they will see that the OBR’s productivity review, which covered the Conservatives’ time in office, reduces

“the amount of revenue the OBR expects the government to collect by around £16 billion in 2029-30.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I agree with him: transparency is critical. On transparency, we Liberal Democrats think that it is time to overhaul this entire process. Colleagues will know that when Sweden faced a similar crisis in its Budget process in the 1990s, it overhauled the process, and it now has a system in which a draft Budget is published. There is a lot of time for it to be debated, and amendments can be tabled by Opposition parties before the process is concluded. The public would welcome such transparency; it would then be incumbent on the Government and all Opposition parties to set out how they would fund their pledges, raise revenue and manage Government spending.

These debates over the last few weeks have raised questions about the role of the OBR, and I want to put it on the record that we Liberal Democrats think that we should keep the OBR. It plays an important role as an independent organisation that can scrutinise the Treasury, but there is scope for more democratic accountability, and to tease out the divergence between forecasts by the OBR and the Treasury.

I am slightly perplexed to see that the Opposition day motion focuses on process, not policy, and that it promotes spin over substance. This Budget has levied stealth taxes on households and on our high streets, and has fundamentally failed to galvanise growth. Maybe it is obvious to people at home why the Conservatives have not tried to focus on the substance: because those stealth taxes were started by the Conservatives and have been carried on by Labour. The Conservatives failed to fix the business rates system, and Labour has not taken forward fundamental change. It is clear that both parties continue to refuse to go for growth with Europe.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) asked a very reasonable and legitimate question about why the Treasury has not said whether it will provide funding for dental training places in his county and for his constituents. That was a legitimate question to ask, so I was disappointed that the Minister tried to say, in response, that we have not supported his tax rises, when we Liberal Democrats have repeatedly, over the last year and more, set out the different ways in which we would raise taxes, including by reforming capital gains tax, looking at other taxes and a windfall tax on the big banks, as recommended by the Institute for Public Policy Research and endorsed by independent economists. We have also set out how getting a customs union with the European Union would boost public finances by £25 billion a year. [Interruption.] I understand that the Minister and those on the Treasury Bench who are chuntering right now may wish to level their accusation at the Conservative party, but that does not stack up when talking to the Liberal Democrats.

[Dave Doogan]

Is the hon. Lady as frustrated as I am to hear the normally temperate Chief Secretary to the Treasury chuntering, “Do you agree with our taxes?”, as though there is only one way to raise fiscal revenues, and as though if we do not agree with Labour, we have got it wrong? That would be ironic, because there are many ways to raise taxes. Is she, like businesses across Scotland, concerned that this Government have taken £66 billion out of the real economy, with no care for what that will do to growth?

[Daisy Cooper]

I am concerned about the impact of this Budget on businesses, and particularly about business rates.

We have been very clear that we are trying to be a party of constructive opposition. In last year’s Budget, it was clear that the jobs tax would raise £10 billion, once we had adjusted for spending, for rebates for the NHS and education, and for changes to behaviour—not the £25 billion that the Government claimed. We set out a number of proposals that could have raised that £10 billion. We Liberal Democrats welcomed the Government raising remote gaming duty in this Budget, because that was in our manifesto at the last general election. I absolutely agree with the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) that there are other ways of raising taxes, and we hope that the Government look at some of our proposals, including our ideas for reforming capital gains tax, which would be a fairer way of raising revenue. It would raise more money from the 0.1% of the population who are super-wealthy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince]

I thank my hon. Friend, but I must disagree with him, because my next point was to say, in all sincerity, that I am a little bit disappointed with the Opposition motion, which I feel is particularly targeted at an individual. I recognise that the motion is about the Chancellor’s position and does not name her, so there is an attempt to talk about the role that she holds, rather than the individual. However, I just do not like the way that the motion singles out a particular person. I think it could have been worded in a way that made it more about the Budget process—but that is my view. I say that because I feel very strongly about the importance of political debate, but as I hope the Opposition have seen, I always try to avoid political attacks on individuals, and to be honest, the motion makes me feel uneasy.

[Dave Doogan]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s appreciation of the fact that the motion is about the post and role of a Minister, not about a local MP and a person. However, while he is dishing out sympathy and empathy, can I encourage him to think of his constituents and mine who are disabled, who thought for the longest time that they were going to lose their livelihood until the Government U-turned on that policy? Can I encourage him to worry about family business owners, who now have no idea how they will afford to pass their local growth-generating business on to the next generation—not to mention farmers, who are now scared to die?

[Chris Vince]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do not think I could ever be accused of being devoid of sympathy. I became an MP because I genuinely and passionately care about making a positive difference to people’s lives. In fact, as Members across the House know, I previously worked in the charity sector and as a teacher. I got involved in those jobs because I wanted to make a positive difference to people’s lives.

One of the big things in the Budget—before I go completely off my speech—is the scrapping of the two-child cap. I recognise the concerns raised by Opposition Members about increased welfare spending—although, it went up on their watch too—but when I am presented with the statistic that over 1,000 young people will be taken out of poverty as a result of that policy, I find it very difficult to ignore.

On a lighter note, I would like to state—there will be collective relief across the House—that no members of my immediate or extended family have ever worked for the Treasury or the OBR. That said, like many Members across the House, particularly on the Labour Benches—I am glad that the deputy leader of the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), mentioned this too—I value the work done by the OBR and, in particular, its independence. Of course, as many Members have mentioned, it is extremely disappointing that the OBR’s “Economic and fiscal outlook” was prematurely accessed by external users before the Chancellor’s speech on Budget day. I am really pleased that the OBR responded to that very quickly. In its own words:

“It is also important to note that the EFO contains market-sensitive information, i.e. information that is not public and could have a material impact on financial markets. This is why, in the run-up to the delivery of the Budget, any leaks concerning the OBR’s forecasts, whether accurate (as in this case) or inaccurate, whether inadvertent (as in this case) or deliberate, are to be greatly deplored.”

This is a good Budget for residents and families in Harlow, with rail fare freezes; prescription fee freezes; additional investment in our local NHS, which I have covered previously, and which had sadly been neglected; a rise in the minimum wage; a rise in the state pension—yes, a brief mention of my mother, who is delighted—and, for the vast majority of residents in Harlow who do not own a property worth over £2 million, no increase in tax.

We saw in 2022 what happens when the OBR is bypassed in the Budget-setting process, but we must ensure that the IT that backs up this non-departmental public body is fit for purpose and that such mistakes do not happen again.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

Education and skills policy, including the funding and operation of colleges, is fully devolved to the Scottish Government. That means that it is for Scottish Ministers to decide how to support Forth Valley college with the overall settlement. As my hon. Friend will know, the spending review provided the Scottish Government with their largest settlement in real terms since devolution in 1998, and the Budget provided an additional £820 million to Scotland through the Barnett formula. In the months ahead we will be campaigning to ensure that decisions about how to invest that funding in Scotland’s future will be taken by Anas Sarwar and a Scottish Labour Government.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The challenges experienced by the businesses of Forth valley are the highest industrial energy prices in the G7, Labour’s farm tax, Labour’s family business tax, Labour’s £26 billion raid on the cost of employing people, Labour’s fiscal drag on everybody’s earnings, the Potemkin support for Grangemouth, the ambivalence to Mossmorran and the defunding of the Acorn project. For how long does the Minister think Scotland should put up with this chaos from Westminster?

[James Murray]

The hon. Member is happy to criticise tax decisions taken by this Government, but where does he think the largest spending review settlement since devolution began came from? Where does he think the £820 million announced at the autumn Budget came from? He needs to support the tax decisions we take if he wants the investment to go into Scotland.

OBR: Resignation of Chair

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that. While the process around the Budget is important, what this Budget means for people across Britain is that we have cut the cost of living, continue to cut NHS waiting lists, and cut Government borrowing.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The head of the OBR has taken responsibility and resigned, just like the BBC director general took responsibility for a crisis and resigned. Given the backdrop that the UK is in the throes of a full-on fiscal crisis of the Chancellor’s own making—both materially by removing £66 billion from the economy with no corresponding stimulus and objectively by briefings, counter-briefings, screeching U-turns, leaks, and a profound lack of discretion over market-sensitive information—why will she not resign?

[James Murray]

The Chancellor has delivered a Budget that takes the challenges of this country head on, cuts the cost of living, continues to cut NHS waiting lists, cuts Government borrowing, and meets the priorities of the British people.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The Scottish Secretary—a grown man who seems easy to upset—was very upset recently when the First Minister of Scotland had direct meetings with the President of the United States over whisky tariffs. The SNP and the First Minister will always stand up for Scotch whisky. Will the Chancellor follow suit, or will she continue in the Treasury’s long-standing tradition of suckling off the enterprise of Scottish businesses rather than supporting them? Her tax hike on Scotch whisky last year cost jobs and investment in Scotland. Will she now stand up—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Sit down.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecasts that debt is going to fall during the course of this Parliament—something that never happened under the Conservative Government—and that the deficit as a share of GDP will fall by 1 percentage point this year. This is a Government who have a grip on the public finances and on public spending, because of the choices that we made. All those choices were opposed by all the Opposition parties.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

In the spring statement earlier this year, the Chancellor said that the responsible choice is to reduce our level of borrowing in the years ahead. That is a noble sentiment, which I applaud—if she was not trying to fix a watch with a hammer. This is the Chancellor that has seen UK debt interest now soar to a 27-year high, while annual debt interest is almost twice the cost of servicing the Ministry of Defence. Given her catastrophic first Budget, what reassurance has she got for Scottish businesses that things will not get even worse when she finally has her next Budget in the winter?

[Rachel Reeves]

I will not take any lectures from the SNP, which has put up taxes on ordinary working people in Scotland. The SNP Scottish Government had the biggest settlement since devolution in real terms at the spending review this year. That was only possible because of the tax changes that we made in the Budget. It is now up to the SNP Government to use that money wisely and to see waiting lists fall in Scotland in the way that they have in England and Wales. Waiting lists are still rising in Scotland—what does that say about their Government?

Taxes

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Grady]

All I will say, Madam Deputy Speaker, is the plain fact is that North sea oil and gas will be produced for many years to come, and the Government support that. The Government are also supporting investment in the industries of the future, such as offshore renewables. Under the Conservative Government, there was a contracts for difference auction with no successful bids, setting back our access to fixed-price, cheap electricity. That is the Tory economic policy on energy: turning up their noses at cheap, fixed-price energy. It is little wonder we are in such a mess.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Grady]

I would like to make some progress, because there are many speakers, but I will give way.

[Dave Doogan]

I would just like to follow up on the hon. Gentleman’s talking down of Scottish skills and training—classic Labour. How does he reconcile the disparaging characteristic that he paints of Scottish skills, entrepreneurialism and training when Scotland has, for 10 years running, been the top destination for foreign direct investment outside London? What is it that foreign enterprise can see in Scotland that no Labour MP ever will?

[John Grady]

I cannot recall saying anything disparaging about Scottish education. I did criticise the Scottish NHS—[Interruption.] Well, the reality is that businesses are absolutely petrified of the way the SNP is dealing with Scottish education. We have insolvent universities and colleges in crisis, and education standards are plummeting. Those are the facts, and they are why the Scottish SNP Government will lose in 2026 and we will have a new First Minister.

The Conservatives are meant to be patriotic and pro-defence. How is the investment in defence to be paid for? Would they reverse the record settlement for the Scottish Government given that we have Scottish elections next year? I think they should explain.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The first line of the Tories’ motion gets to the word “manifesto”, and I accept their premise that that is what this is about—it is about the commitment

“not to increase taxes on working people, and not to increase National Insurance or the basic, higher or additional rates of Income Tax”.

I do not think that is a tall order. The next item on the list, however, is VAT. Never mind the headline rate, the concern now, from comments inside the Government, is about what will be dragged into VAT or have its reduced rate increased. There is no clarity on that from the Government, much less any reference to it in their manifesto from which Parliament, and taxpayers across these islands, can take any comfort or otherwise.

The motion

“calls on the Government to reaffirm the statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer…that…personal tax thresholds will be uprated”

in the manner that they said. That is a fair point. Fiscal drag is an iniquitous thing to inflict on people. It eats into pay rises and erodes people’s incentives to get on and progress, and there is a real concern, given the fiscal misadventure—it seems to be one farce after another with this Government, and one U-turn after another. They talk about introducing stability into the fiscal dynamic. Well I am holding my breath waiting for that to happen, but I think I am making a mistake in that pursuit.

Worst of all—well, it is not worst of all, but it is really bad—are the changes to agricultural property relief, which were also not in the Government’s manifesto, and I sincerely urge the Minister to pause and review those changes. As others have articulated, that measure was clearly something that Treasury officials put in front of every new Chancellor, and every new Chancellor to date has had the wit to say, “Well, I’m not doing that,”—expect for this Chancellor, who is lacking in wit and much else to recommend her. She said, “Ooh, I’ll just go ahead and do that,” completely failing to understand the agricultural economy as it exists in these islands.

My constituency of Angus and Perthshire Glens is the garden of Scotland and the highest productive agricultural land in Scotland. An ecosystem exists around that farm enterprise, of recruitment, training, plant sales, feed stock, markets, fuel sales—it all exists, and it revolves like satellites around the farm business. Those farmers are now saying, “Why would I invest? What on earth would I invest for? Why am I investing my hard-earned capital into increasing technology and lowering the cost of production, so that I can get more competitive food on to the shelves of supermarkets and help with the cost of living, which this Government are incapable of doing anything about, meaning that my asset values go up, and so that when I die and my assets transfer, my tax bill goes up?”

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is giving a powerful speech on this subject. I was at the Great Yorkshire Show last week, and there we had not only livestock and farmers, but the whole supply chain around that. The only conversation there was exactly as the hon. Gentleman describes, of a whole industry brought low because of this misconceived measure. He talked about Chancellors being presented with things. The caravan tax was presented to the Chancellor in 2012, and it took Government Back Benchers to persuade those on the Front Bench to change path. I hope Labour Members might do the same with the farm tax.

[Dave Doogan]

That is a welcome and comprehensive round-up of some of the broader issues on this, but it speaks to the fiscal innumeracy that says, “There is no cost to any of this; we can just help ourselves to that and it won’t have any impact.” As the right hon. Member for Wetherby and Easingwold (Sir Alec Shelbrooke) pointed out, if we speak to any rural plant sales or dealership, and they will say that sales have gone off a cliff, along with the VAT, employment, income tax, and national insurance that went with them. That speaks to a Treasury and a Chancellor who have a passing understanding of the price of everything but could not identify value in a line-up.

The motion goes on to talk about pensions. This is difficult, because I do not believe for one minute that we should pull pensioners whose income is only the state pension into tax. Neither do I believe that by dint of being a pensioner someone should get tax relief on the same income that somebody who earns that income will not get tax relief on. The Government are in a difficult position on this, and that is of their own making. Unless and until they guarantee to uprate the rates and protect pensioners from fiscal drag, there is little point in making a great big song and dance about the triple lock, if what that does is pull pensioners into taxation.

Where I diverge from the movers of the motion—

[Graham Stuart]

Shame! It was going so well.

[Dave Doogan]

Yes, it had to come, and I am relieved that there is a cleavage. Where I diverge with them is on a wealth tax. I see that we are in a state—the UK is not a country—where poverty levels among our children are rising in every country in the UK except Scotland. In Scotland, it costs us £150 million a year—it will be £200 million by the end of the decade—to mitigate Westminster’s mismanagement of child poverty.

We cannot say that it is somehow punitive for people with assets of more than £10 million to attract an annual, modest rate on those assets. That is reflective of the highest tax burden that ordinary people have paid since the second world war—incidentally, I say to Conservative colleagues that that was the case before the election. The Labour party has just knocked that into the stratosphere with its misadventure.

There has been no talk anywhere in this Chamber today about Brexit. I remember the Prime Minister—what was she called? Theresa May. She was asked repeatedly, “What does Brexit mean?” She said, “Brexit means Brexit,” which is as nebulous as it sounds. In 2025, we now know what Brexit means. It means enduring child poverty and flatlining growth, no matter who is in charge of the Treasury in the United Kingdom. It means a common purpose between Labour and the Conservatives to have a neurotic policy on immigration. It means pale imitations to substitute for EU programmes, such as substituting Erasmus with the pointless Turing scheme, or EU structural funding and other funding with “levelling up.” It means a permanent drag on business.

The further we get from covid, the more we see that the fundamentals that are wrong with this economy are due to Brexit. The Minister, in his summing up, will doubtless say—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Roger Gale)]

Order. I call John Slinger.

UK Infrastructure: 10-year Strategy

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I agree very much with my hon. Friend. Next week I will be meeting finance Ministers from the devolved Governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. We will put forward today’s update on our infrastructure strategy and seek to partner with them as best we can to deliver for people and places across the whole of Scotland. But given the track record of the SNP Government, I am afraid that I do not have a huge amount of confidence.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The denial in this statement is truly breathtaking. This UK Government could not come up with a 10-year strategy that would survive first contact with reality on anything, and the statement comes against a backdrop of challenging cuts off the backs of the poorest while we are fitting £10 million new doors to the House of Lords and providing £100 billion for a not-very-fast railway that will not be finished for some time.

There was nothing for Scotland in the Chancellor’s spending review, there is nothing for Scotland in this statement, and there is nothing for Scotland in the UK’s 10-year infrastructure working paper. On that latter document, it is interesting to note that it does not mention devolution, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland once. Does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury think that simply mentioning Acorn will make private capital hang around and wait for the Government to put a number on it? How much of this will be a rerun of Labour’s disastrous private finance initiative projects, which Scottish councils are still haemorrhaging money on, and why is he heralding working with the Welsh Government but not the SNP Scottish Government? Is he a democrat or not?

[Darren Jones]

That was a stream of slightly incoherent questions, if I may say so. I point the hon. Gentleman to the document that we have published today, which does mention Scotland quite a few times. He says that this Labour Government have not delivered anything for Scotland. I will just point him to the largest real-terms increase in funding since devolution began—his SNP colleagues might want to think about how they could spend that more wisely for the people of Scotland. That is in addition to the supercomputer in Edinburgh; the development funding for Acorn, and for carbon capture, usage and storage; and our defence spending, including on the Clyde—I could go on and on. The only people in denial are those in the SNP.

Spending Review 2025

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Wednesday 11th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend will want to leave space on the leaflet to remind his constituents that he was lobbying for all those things so that he can take the thanks.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

I welcome the U-turn on the winter fuel payment—of course I do, and lots of my constituents will do likewise—but there is no respite in this spending review for farmers in Scotland, business owners in Scotland, GP surgeries in Scotland, or the disabled in hospices in Scotland. Despite what the Chancellor says, there have also been real-terms cuts to the Home Office, Foreign Office and local government in this spending review.

The Chancellor is an open book. She plays roulette with the economy, but I would not encourage her to play poker any time soon, because she mentioned Reform and the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in her speech more times than she mentioned Scotland—what a disgrace! She mentioned that she has finally got around to Acorn, but without a figure attached. What funding is she going to allocate for Acorn? We know that if it is Merseyside or Teesside, there is £22 billion for them. How much for Acorn?

[Rachel Reeves]

I did mention the SNP—I questioned why the SNP does not support defence investment in Scotland—but I can mention it again, if the hon. Gentleman would like me to. Why has the SNP let down the people of Scotland with rising hospital waiting lists? Why has the SNP let down people in Scotland with more drugs deaths? Why has the SNP let people down time and again? We are putting money into Acorn and into defence investment, and we are giving a record settlement to the SNP Government, but hopefully they will not be there for much longer.

Oral Answers to Questions

Dave Doogan Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury is working closely with businesses right across the energy sector. The previous Government increased the rate of tax on energy companies to 75%, and we increased it by three percentage points to 78%, reflecting the fact that energy companies have enjoyed huge profits since Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. When people’s bills have gone up, it is right that we ask the energy companies making those profits to contribute a little more.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

What changes will the Chancellor introduce in the spring statement to compensate for the growth-threatening sword of Damocles she has just placed over the Scottish fishing industry? She should know, but probably does not, that 70% of revenue from fishing and aquaculture comes from Scotland, and she should know, but probably does not, that the fishing industry in Scotland is 50 times larger for Scotland’s economy than for the UK’s. Can she explain what discussions she had with the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation or the Scottish Government before making this damaging decision?

[Rachel Reeves]

I was very pleased that the Scottish salmon association welcomed the trade deal that we secured with the EU yesterday. Some 70% of the fish that is caught in UK waters is sold into European markets. That will now benefit from the sanitary and phytosanitary deal that we have secured within that deal. We have rolled over the deal that the previous Government secured, giving certainty to fishermen in Scotland and across the UK. We have made it easier for them to export into European markets. We have ensured that we can sell shellfish again into European markets, and we announced yesterday the £360 million package of measures to support coastal and fishing industries. The Scottish National party is now in an absurd situation where it supports Reform and the Tories in opposing the deal with the EU.