Dave Doogan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  No. If the hon. Gentleman can get one of his colleagues to intervene, I will give way to them. The Government’s decision to raise national insurance was like them showing that they do not know how the real economy works without showing that they do not know how the real economy works. It is a punitive lowering of the floor and increasing of the rate to try to wring out of employers the money required to recover the economy. It is a drag on employment, investment and wage rises. It is absolutely unforgiveable and totally counter to what the Labour party stated, ahead of the election, was its aim: to create a Budget for growth. There will be absolutely no growth as a consequence of that autumn statement. The Government think they will raise over £20 billion but, by the Treasury’s own measure, that figure is down to around £10 billion after they have made all the compensations. It is a massive swage of pain for very little gain in investment. In moving the motion, the hon. Member for Livingston said that we in the SNP are keen to spend the extra money we will get but not to say how we would raise it. Actually, I will tell him how we would raise it, and our way would be much more cogent than what the Labour Government in Westminster have said they will do. Over and above that, in a Scotland-specific context the hike in duty on Scotch whisky was, in the words of the industry itself, “an indefensible tax grab”. Yet somehow we are expected to believe that everything will be okay because Anas Sarwar is going to speak to the Chancellor about it. The Chancellor will presumably then do what the UK Government always do when Labour in Scotland ask them to do something: absolutely nothing, if not the exact opposite. The hon. Member for Livingston also talked about energy. He should go up to the north-east of Scotland to talk about energy: we are six months into this Government and there is no evidence whatever of GB Energy making any impact in Scotland. The last time I checked, it had one employee and was based in Manchester. The hon. Member also talked about the investment that would be realised. Somehow, the Acorn project in Scotland —the most deliverable carbon capture, usage and storage project across GB—is still not being funded by the Labour Government, despite their funding a further two CCUS projects in England, in addition to the two already there. Sadly, it is England 4, Scotland 0—it is like a football match.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I hope that that money will be spent and make a great difference, but it will not compensate the Western Isles and the Northern Isles one bit for the money that they have lost as a consequence of Brexit. The hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) and many of his colleagues herald this as the largest Budget settlement for the Scottish Government, as though Budget settlements go up and down. But they continually go up: every latest Budget settlement is the biggest Budget settlement since the last one. As various Bills have passed through the Chamber, I have not run out of opportunities to point out to the Government how the basics of fiscal policy and economics work, and here we are again. All power to the communities of the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton). I hope they get great benefit from that money but it does not fully compensate them for what they have lost, and no mistake. The tax rise of £40 billion represents the biggest since Norman Lamont in 1993. Do not forget that when this Government came in, they inherited the highest tax burden in living memory, or certainly since the end of the second world war at least—

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Like the hon. Lady, I am very hopeful that we will see Berwick Bank approved and into the construction phase as quickly as possible, to cement Scotland’s enviable position as the renewable powerhouse of Europe. She shares that ambition with me, but what we are talking about is due process. It ill behoves elected Members of any stripe or any Parliament to meddle in the statutory process of a consenting major development; that will unwind in the way it unwinds, but I very much hope it is positive and expedient. I turn to the Women Against State Pension Inequality—the WASPI women. They will absolutely have been left wondering what they have done to deserve such a catastrophic betrayal by the Labour party of their very modest and reasonable ambitions. During the debate on the autumn statement, I said that it was fantastic news that the Government, to be fair, had made sure that the money was there for the infected blood scandal and that the postmasters were properly compensated. Neither of those two scandals was of the UK Government’s making—well, not deliberately of their making; certainly not the infected blood scandal—but the WASPI women’s situation was. We now know the Government have turned their back on those people in the most reprehensible way possible. The Chancellor promised a growth Budget and the hon. Member for Livingston says it is a growth Budget, but sadly it will “leave GDP largely unchanged in five years”. The inflation forecast will compound that. Inflation is set to rise to 2.6% and interest rates by 0.25% just; mortgage rates, after a brief period of respite, are on course to rise again. For years, people up and down these islands, especially in Scotland, have been hammered by the cost of living crisis. They, alongside small businesses, will be looking at this hatchet job by the Labour party and wondering what on earth will be coming next. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, no less, has pointed out that somebody will pay for these higher taxes; that somebody will be the ordinary working person. The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that there is only a 54% chance that the Labour Government will meet their own fiscal rules through this Budget, raising the question of why the Chancellor thinks this amount of economic pain is worth such a low level of fiscal gain. What about investors in the agricultural sector? Scotland’s agriculture is a very much larger part of its economy than overall UK agriculture is of the UK economy, but I am sure the Chancellor never bothered to speak to anybody in Scotland about her raid on farms through her farmers’ death tax. Labour could have done something progressive to stop outside investment and farmers disrupting that market, but they did not and they threatened the very existence of Scottish agriculture. What would the SNP have done? We would certainly not have put this colossal fiscal drag on the economy of Scotland. We would have made sure that what we did was progressive and proportionate and that it would increase economic growth. I am sure Labour Members are not very supportive of an income tax in Scotland—

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  No. Let us get it on the record that the fuel payment did not use to be devolved and that, at the same time as it was devolved, they went and cut the budget. That is the Labour Government at a UK level for you. So yes, I know it is devolved.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, and I apologise for chuntering from a sedentary position earlier; that was not very polite of me. He says that we need to see an end to the SNP’s “buy now and pay later” approach. Of course, he will be familiar with the fact that the SNP Government, or any other Scottish Government, must have a balanced budget every year, so what does he mean by “buy now and pay later”?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  That is fine, Ms Vaz; I am just closing now. I do not think Members will be speaking for 10 minutes, but that is not my job. On the progressive income tax regime implemented by the SNP in Scotland, I should say that Labour criticised us when we had the powers and did not use them, and criticised us when we had the powers and did use them. If the UK Government had mirrored our fiscal policy on income tax, they would have raised about £16.5 billion across the United Kingdom. That would not have been reduced to £10 billion because of compensations that they would have had to make, because there would not have been a raise on employer’s national insurance; they would not have had to compensate anybody. They do not want to talk about Brexit, but I do, because it cost the UK £30 billion a year and Scotland £10 billion a year, which would otherwise have been a great increase in the economic output of Scotland and the rest of the UK. My final point is that the UK Government could scrap nuclear weapons. In four years, the estimated budget has gone up from £44 billion to £100 billion over a 10-year period. An awful lot of investment could be made in Scottish communities with that money, which would boost Scotland even more. We already enjoy the highest number of GPs, nurses, midwives and teachers per head in Scotland; nowhere else in the United Kingdom can touch our level of provision. The Labour party are just going to have to suck that up.

• 6 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The cost of the 10-year equipment plan for the Defence Nuclear Organisation stood at £44 billion in 2019. In 2022, it went up by 27% to £60 billion, and in 2024 it inflated by 62% to £99.5 billion. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that the MOD has not lost the run of itself on this worst-of-all defence procurement debacles? What personal commitment can he give the House that he has the foggiest idea what to do about it?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q10. Before the election, this Prime Minister said he would lower energy bills by £300. Since he took office, they have gone up by £149. He said he would protect the winter fuel payment, but now he is in power he has stripped it off our pensioners. And he lined up for many photos with WASPI women, saying he would have their backs, and he has just betrayed them in the most scandalous way possible. This is now the defining characteristic of this one-trick phony Prime Minister who says one thing and does another. In Scotland, the SNP is 16 points ahead in the polls. Does he understand why the people of these islands, especially those of us in Scotland, treat him with such contempt?

• 18 Dec 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Sovereignty · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister gets ahead of himself. He says the Government have moved at pace to resolve the situation; the situation is not resolved. He criticises the last Government for not securing a deal; his deal is not secured either. The last time we talked about this, we talked about the President-elect not being keen on the deal and the Chagossians not being properly consulted on it. When will he come back to the House on this situation and tell us something positive about this cack-handed deal?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman talks about the expansion of early years childcare, but that will not be of much use if nurseries shut down because they cannot pay their national insurance. Does he understand that dynamic?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making a tremendously informed speech and demonstrating a level of understanding of primary care and the care sector that we could only dream of from the Government. Is it her concern that many charities, voluntary sector organisations and GP surgeries are already operating on the thinnest margins of financial sustainability and that this measure will torpedo the very organisations that protect our communities from absolute chaos? Secondary care cannot do it alone; it is upheld by primary care and the care sector. Is she as concerned as many other hon. Members that this will cause absolute chaos?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is very kind to give way. Twice in the past couple of minutes, he has used the word “ultimately”—“Ultimately we will have to do this, and ultimately we will have to do that.” It is “actually” that he should be saying. You actually have to make sure that there is funding, not ultimately—that can wait for another day. Actually is what will happen as soon as this legislation comes to pass—you will be in an absolute quagmire.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady is making a compelling case of logic as it applies to early years provision, and I do not think anybody in this place could argue with the logic she advances. Is it not so robust, however, that it also applies to primary care, hospices and charities, if it applies to nurseries?

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  indicated assent .

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I refer him to Hansard from the previous Parliament. The comments I have just made are entirely consistent with the comments I made in the last parliamentary term. With each day that passes, we learn more about the damage Labour’s Budget will inflict on household bills, businesses and charities, yet despite those warnings the Labour Government are determined not to listen and are ploughing ahead with this devastating proposal. The SNP will always stand up and protect Scottish jobs, Scottish services and Scotland’s people. That is reflected in John Swinney’s budget—a balanced budget in the interests of the people of Scotland and the businesses of Scotland. That is the SNP way. We have done it this year and we have done it in every one of the 17 previous years we have been in the Scottish Government. Do the UK Government understand how commissioned services work? We have heard that quite a lot this afternoon and it is becoming increasingly clear that, at best, they have a sketchy understanding of why vital services are provided by non-statutory service providers. What is going to happen when this measure unwinds into the real economy is that charities, GP surgeries, hospices and other vital elements of healthcare provision will not have reserves. They are already operating at the very margins of financial sustainability, so when the sums do not add up, they will have two choices. They will approach the commissioning authority that has commissioned their services to ask for an uplift in their fees. The answer will be no, because the money is not there. Alternatively, they will withdraw their services or draw down their services. Either way, it will be enormously challenging and extremely damaging for some of the most vulnerable in our society.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I agree entirely with the hon. Member. There is no road back from that. The difficulty that I implore the Government to pay attention to is that when the damage that will be inflicted by this measure is inflicted by this measure, they cannot just say, “Oops, we got that wrong. If you wouldn’t mind all coming back and start delivering these commissioned services, we’ll admit we got it wrong.” When it’s gone, it’s gone. It is not acceptable that the Government are playing fast and loose with the safety net that exists in our communities and our society to catch the most vulnerable people and prevent absolute chaos. That is exactly what the Government are doing. However, the Government should not take the hon. Lady’s word for it, or mine. We can listen to people who are at the coalface. This is primary evidence from the Scottish Huntington’s Association: “The entire charity sector is increasingly burdened by climbing costs, funding issues, recruitment and retention challenges and an increased demand for services. All too many have had to close their doors, with more expected to follow. Additional burdens being imposed by government at this juncture”, the association says, are deeply unhelpful. “Coming just weeks after the prime minister announced a ‘new partnership that can harness civil society’s full potential’ this must surely be an unfortunate oversight, and one that simply cannot be allowed to stand given the scale of its implications for the not-for-profit sector and the many thousands of people who depend upon it in the absence of alternative statutory services.” It is not just the association that takes that view. Turning Point Scotland has advised that this measure alone will add £1.1 million to its costs overnight, and it comes at a time of a pressured environment, when many of its services are already running at a deficit. That is true of the voluntary sector, but also of the nursery and college sectors. On healthcare, I wonder whether the Government understand the concept of whole-system costs. As I and many Members have said, when charities fold, as many of them will, the services that they were providing will no longer be there. Who will then provide that care? It will be the provider of last resort, secondary care. People will present themselves at hospitals, where there will be no room. It will be chaotic, but in a purely Treasury and fiscal sense, it will be an extremely expensive form of chaos, for which the Government, through the whole-system paradigm, will need to pick up the costs. I am not certain that the Minister has been properly briefed by his Treasury officials on what the risk assessment actually says about the human and financial costs of the change when this heads south. This is what happens when the Chancellor treats the real economy as her own personal political piggy-bank. It will not be possible to fix this once it has been broken. I have some sympathy for the Minister in one respect. We have heard, and I will not repeat, the headline figure—the gross quantum that the Government expect to generate by lowering the threshold and increasing the rates of employer national insurance. By the time everyone who is in a position to adjust their business and employment characteristics to accommodate it has done so, by the time the Government have compensated elements of the public sector and by the time the economy has contracted to accommodate that, we are already down from £25-something billion to £10 billion-odd. That is a lot of pain to accept to gain £10 billion. If the Government were to exclude or make provision for hospices, nurseries, the voluntary sector more generally and universities, that £10 billion would be reduced to an embarrassingly small figure, so they are stuck between a rock and a hard place. I nevertheless encourage them to have the courage of their convictions and put the interests of the people of these islands first, rather than the political expediency of careering headlong towards a cliff edge that is as plain as the nose on the end of your face and jumping over it anyway in order to save face—because the Government will not save face. There is no escape from the corner they have painted themselves into. They can either U-turn and incur the political costs, which I would recommend, given that they have just come through the door—they should be at the height of their political powers, but if this is the height of their political powers, goodness me!—or they can carry on regardless, and pick up the pieces of all the chaos that will be wreaked across the sector. This incompetence, for it is incompetence, did not start when the Government walked through the doors of Nos. 10 and 11 Downing Street. It started back in the election campaign, when they proscribed the use of the single biggest lever in the Treasury’s toolkit to get additional funding. They said that they would not increase income tax on ordinary working people, although with these measures they will take away financial opportunities and, actually, people’s money through payroll changes anyway. It is smoke and mirrors. However, by painting themselves into that corner on income tax, they have created a situation in which they have to make the most damaging tax intervention possible, which is entirely contrary to their stated ambition of generating growth. Quite a lot of Labour Members have said, “It’s all very well listening to the Opposition, but what would you do?” I will give them two really easy things that the Government could have done. If they had mirrored the income tax thresholds that the Scottish Government have introduced, they would have generated £19 billion. That would not have had a single impediment on the real economy, would not have choked off growth and would not have put primary care on the precipice. They could have done that. Or, if they had thought that they could get by on less than £19 billion—they will have to, because they will raise less than £10 billion from this measure—they could have just reversed the previous Government’s two cuts to employee’s national insurance. Judging by the arithmetic in this place, the Conservatives did not exactly get a brilliant political return on cutting employee’s national insurance twice in two quarters of one financial year. The Government could have reversed those cuts, which would have netted £10 billion—roughly where they are now, on aggregate—but no, they did not want to do that and they refuse to do so.

• 17 Dec 2024 · National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to defend Scotland’s NHS, including our GPs, hospices, care homes and nurseries, from this Labour Government’s national insurance tax hike, as well as to protect the charity and higher education sectors. I am proud of the amendments the SNP has tabled to the Bill to protect these vital services from the increase in national insurance contributions put forward by the Government. The fears are genuine and escalating over the job cuts and service reductions that will be the inevitable and plain and simple consequence of this fiscal madness. We in the SNP have consistently highlighted the brutal impact that Labour’s tax rises will have on GPs, charities, care homes and other sectors, with organisations warning that deep cuts will be made to the services they provide—vital services that are no less essential to communities and individuals than secondary care services just because they are received in the community or from a charity. That is why we have tabled amendments 4, 5, 6 and 26 in my name and the names of SNP colleagues. On higher education, the University of Edinburgh was last month reported to have opened a redundancy process for staff as a result of Labour’s tax hike, and Universities Scotland is warning of a potential £45 million tax burden for Scottish universities. Yet again, we see key sectors of the Scottish economy hammered by a London Treasury out of touch, out of ideas and, if this goes through, demonstrably out of control. Higher education, agriculture, and oil and gas are all demonstrably larger elements of the Scottish economy than they are of the English or UK economy. This Government, with NICs and other specific tax increases or allowance removals, are hammering particularly important elements of the Scottish economy. As usual, what England wants Scotland gets. The Labour Government’s national insurance increase will be a disaster for Scotland’s healthcare providers, voluntary organisations, nurseries, universities and colleges, but who on the Labour Benches has come along to speak up for those organisations in Scotland? Nobody. Not one Labour Scottish MP made a speech to protect Scotland’s interests. But Labour MPs from Scotland were there to nod through and vote through the cut to the winter fuel payment, freezing Scotland’s pensioners; Labour’s bedroom tax, entrenching poverty in Scotland; Labour’s two-child limit, punishing the poorest in Scotland; taxing Scotland’s oil and gas sector to the brink of extinction; attacking Scottish agriculture; and gouging Scotch whisky. They were all here to make sure that that happened and to speak to that, so I will leave the people of Scotland to draw their own conclusions about this particular lack of activity from Scottish Labour MPs.

• 16 Dec 2024 · Israel and Palestine · Hansard source

  More

  Does the hon. Member agree that, as a tactical manoeuvre by the state of Israel, the destruction that has been wrought on Gaza and its people is catastrophically counterproductive? These punitive measures against Palestinians will not be a harbinger of peace for Israel. If the UK is a friend of Israel, we must, as a good friend would, say, “This far and no further. You must recant.”

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We in the SNP and the Scottish Government believe in progressive taxation. I think that is evident from the changes we have made to income tax since those matters were devolved. We would like a more progressive influence in the changes before us, rather than simply clawing at allowances and increasing the rate. Nothing in clauses 7 to 12 is designed to make matters better in Scotland, but at least the Labour party is consistent on that. Inheritance tax and capital gains tax are increasingly out of step with modern activity in the UK economy. As the IPPR points out, since the 1980s, household wealth in the UK has risen from three times the national income to more than seven times, yet over the same timeframe wealth taxes have not risen at all as a share of that income. Taxing unearned wealth more fairly and efficiently is a legitimate long-term ambition in a state where the economy is on life support. Taxpayers are left wondering from this Budget whether more tax rises are on the way, after a substantial lack of clarity from the Chancellor, who said a week or so ago that the Government would not come back for more tax rises, or indeed more borrowing, but has since refused to echo those rather injudicious remarks. If she does not have the confidence to stand by her own statements, it is hard to imagine the effect on business and investor confidence across the UK. The Chancellor should have worked with economic experts, such as those at the IFS, to create a fairer and more growth-friendly capital gains tax, but instead she has been captured by the same old Treasury dogma that has served the UK so badly over recent decades. Capital gains tax raises a growing amount of revenue—about £15 billion last year—partly reflecting the increased role of wealth accumulation in the UK, but it is still less than 2% of all tax take, and although CGT is paid by about 350,000 people each year, two thirds of receipts are from just 12,000 people with an average gain of £4 million. CGT rates vary significantly across assets, and are almost always significantly lower than income tax rates. That rate differential is unfair and creates undesirable distortions, including to what people invest in and how long they choose to work. The IFS has criticised the Chancellor for choosing simply to increase CGT rates with no effort to carry out what it describes as much-needed reform. It also describes the whole design of CGT as “flawed”, adding: “There are steps the government could and should take to make the tax fairer and less harmful to economic growth and well-being.” Moreover, the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation proposes further changes to CGT, including aligning capital gains tax rates with income tax rates, introducing allowances to incentivise investment, taxing the increase in an asset’s value when it is inherited, and implementing an exit tax to prevent individuals from dodging UK taxes on gains made while residing in the UK. It estimates that that package would generate £14 billion, but none of those measures is in the Bill. The IFS says that if the Chancellor chose to raise CGT rates while leaving the flawed tax base unchanged, she would be choosing to raise some limited revenue at the expense of weakening savings and investment incentives, and of further distorting which assets people buy and how long they hold on to them. The IFS says that that would not be the decision of a Chancellor who is serious about growth. Well, what a portent that turned out to be. She did not reform CGT, and look what happened to growth: forecasts were down immediately after first contact with this inverse Midas-touch Chancellor. It is clear that, in preparing for the Budget, she could have done with a full hour or more with the IFS, but I doubt that she would have listened.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Chair. The last but one speaker, the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley (Yuan Yang), called me out regarding my perfectly legitimate comment that there was not a single Scottish Labour MP in here. I chose my words carefully, taking part in this debate. I appreciate that there is a Labour Member here who, unless I am very much mistaken, is fulfilling the role of a Parliamentary Private Secretary and therefore will not be taking part in the debate. I ask your guidance, Madam Chair, on whether it is legitimate to call somebody out in a debate and not give them an opportunity to respond. I tried to intervene on the hon. Member for Earley and Woodley to correct the record, but she refused to give way. How can we correct the record to underline the fact that there is not a single Scottish Labour MP in here taking part in this debate on Scotland’s energy?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member highlights the economic consequences of this heading south on jobs in Scotland. Is she surprised and disappointed, as I am, that not a single Scottish Labour MP has turned up to take part in this vital debate?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The changes to the EPL, particularly those set out in clauses 15 and 17, will have a hugely damaging effect on jobs and the Scottish economy. This is also an inauspicious day for Scotland in this so-called United Kingdom as Norway’s sovereign wealth fund records a €1.7 trillion breakthrough, while Scotland’s oil wealth has been squandered by successive Westminster Governments. Norway gets financial security in perpetuity; Scotland gets Labour’s bedroom tax, cuts to winter fuel payments for our elderly and the highest energy prices in the G20—that is the Union dividend wrapped up and served on a plate right there. More than £400 billion has flowed from our waters to the Treasury over the years, with very little coming back in the other direction. Rather than reverse the train, the Labour Government have, with this increase to the EPL, chosen to accelerate it. The cumulative effect of clauses 15 to 18 will sound the death knell for Scotland’s hydrocarbon production in advance, crucially, of the transition—economically illiterate, fiscally incompetent and with industrial suicide as the result. A windfall tax is supposed to be a tax on extraordinary profits, yet the extraordinarily high global oil and gas prices that preceded the introduction of the tax have long since abated. Through these changes, the Labour party jeopardises investment in Scotland’s offshore energies and risks the future of our skilled workforce and our ability to hit net zero while employing those workers. Analysis from Offshore Energies UK shows that the increase and extension of the EPL risks costing the economy £13 billion and putting 35,000 jobs at risk. The analysis from OEUK also shows a collapse in viable capital investment offshore under these changes from £14.1 billion to £2.3 billion in the period ’25-29. It is increasingly apparent that the Government do not really understand how investment horizons work offshore. They are not on a month-to-month basis; they take years to work up. This loss of economic value impacts on not only the core sector, but domestic supply chain companies, many of whom exist in my constituency, which have an essential role to play in the just transition. The Labour party promised that there would be no cliff edge, yet it has concocted one for the 35,000 workers whose jobs this EPL change puts at risk. Labour had claimed that these changes would keep the UK in line with Norway, but the regime after Labour’s changes cannot be compared to that of Norway, which allows companies a maximum £78 of relief per £100 expenditure —in the UK, this relief would be £46.25. After these past couple of weeks, I am given to wondering if those on the Treasury Front Bench can actually count. Changes to the EPL will hinder the just transition. The Government argue that the reduction in the rate of the decarbonisation investment allowance to 66% will maintain the overall cumulative value of relief for investment expenditure following the rate increase, reflecting the fact that this relief will increase in value against a higher levy rate. However, the policy still reflects a political choice by Labour to deprioritise investment in decarbonisation. Rather than allowing more valuable decarbonisation relief as the solitary positive by-product of its tax hike, Labour has striven to ensure that there is absolutely no silver lining to this fiscal attack cloud on Scotland’s energy industry.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Exactly. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of jobs, and the Government are playing fast and loose with jobs in the oil and gas sector. They are playing Russian roulette. They do not seem to understand that when what they have got wrong comes home to roost, they cannot just say, “Sorry, we got that wrong.” When it is gone, it is gone—they cannot bring it back. This is 2024, not 1972. We are already in the closing chapter of the sector; it will not be coming back. This Government seem to completely misunderstand that. The simple truth is that the UK state cannot meet net zero or create green growth if Labour’s policies to hack away at investment in both the domestic workforce and the sector are allowed to progress. It is clear that the Labour party is abandoning Scotland’s existing energy sector, and putting at risk the just transition into the bargain. With these changes to the EPL, Labour will be creating the worst of all worlds: it will starve industry of investment, sacrifice the jobs of those who can deliver net zero, threaten energy security, keep energy bills high and harm the economy of Scotland, while at the very same time failing to invest the money required to truly deliver against a green transition.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Certainty is only good if it relates to a positive outlook, not a negative outlook. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) asked a clear question about the duration. It was not about whether the sector pays fair taxes; we all believe that people should pay fair taxes. Does the Minister still believe that the industry is making extraordinary profits?