Westminster Hall

Thursday 17th October 2024 Westminster Hall

Thursday 17 October 2024

[Martin Vickers in the Chair]

Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services

Thursday 17th October 2024 Westminster Hall

13:30

[Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered visas, security and access to services for Hong Kongers living in the UK.

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. As a new Member of Parliament, I am happy to say that this is my first Westminster Hall debate, and I am delighted to have secured it on such an important set of issues.

Support for Hongkongers is a priority of mine for two main reasons. First, my constituency is home to a large diaspora of Hongkongers. We take great pride that so many have chosen our community as the place to rebuild their lives, having fled from tyranny and oppression. Secondly, the Labour party has a proud history and record of standing up for human rights, from Northern Ireland to Kosovo, and of supporting those who have come to our country having fled authoritarian rule. I am confident that our new Government will uphold that fine heritage. If they are to do so, however, support for Hongkongers is essential, as I am sure the Minister will agree.

There has never been a more important moment to stand with Hongkongers than now. We all know about the tragic erosion of democracy and human rights that has occurred in Hong Kong since the imposition of the national security law in 2020 with more than 10,000 arrests of those protesting for freedom, 900 journalists losing their livelihoods simply for speaking the truth and a rapid growth in the number of political prisoners, matched only by the rapid decline in due process as authoritarianism continues to spread. With the article 23 legislation now set to make the situation even worse, these are worrying times for Hongkongers wherever they are in the world. Given the increasing need for Hongkongers to leave Hong Kong and come to the UK, it is important to take this moment to consider the future of the British national overseas visa scheme.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I genuinely congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this early opportunity to ventilate the issue. He talks about those who flee persecution, and he is right, but the truth of the matter is that even when Hongkongers are in this country, they are not beyond the reach of the Chinese Communist party. We have seen instances of illegal police stations operated by the Chinese and of persecution on campuses around the country. Does he agree that our responsibility to Hongkongers coming to this country does not end when they arrive at Heathrow? That is simply when it starts.

[Mr Rand]

Yes, absolutely. I thank the right hon. Member for making that important point, which I will come on to later in my remarks.

On the BNO visa scheme, for the sake of fairness, I should start my remarks by giving credit where it is due: the scheme is one of the best things that the Conservative party did in its 14 years of government. Even though it is top of what I might consider a vanishingly small list of achievements, that should not distract from what a resounding success it has been. About 150,000 Hongkongers have been able to flee tyranny because of the scheme. Our country should be deeply proud of that. I will be grateful if, when the Minister responds, she could spell out that this Government’s commitment to the scheme matches that of the previous Government.

I also want the Government to consider the loopholes within the BNO visa scheme. We know that the scheme was initially designed for Hongkongers who, as adults, had applied for BNO status prior to the handover of Hong Kong in 1997. In 2022, the scheme was expanded to allow younger Hongkongers born after the 1997 handover, who never had the chance to apply for that status themselves, to come to the UK as part of the visa. However, there is a group in the middle.

Thousands of Hongkongers born between 1979 and 1997 are caught by a loophole as they are not old enough to have applied for BNO status before the handover, but not young enough to qualify under the 2022 expansion. I encourage the Minister to engage on this issue with Hong Kong Watch, which has proposed practical ways to close the loophole and open up the path to escaping oppression for thousands of Hongkongers, allowing family reunions that would mean so much to those living in the United Kingdom.

On the subject of design flaws with the visa scheme, I also encourage the Minister to look at visa and asylum applications that have been refused on the grounds of the applicant having a criminal record. Although that may be perfectly reasonable in other circumstances, we know that some pro-democracy protesters in Hong Kong are getting criminal records, and that in and of itself should not be a reason to deny them safe passage to the United Kingdom, as I am sure all colleagues would agree.

Although the visa scheme is important, it is also vital, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) mentioned, that we ensure Hongkongers living in the United Kingdom can live happy, safe and prosperous lives. The point on safety is particularly crucial. Members will be aware of the long arm of the Chinese state, which is a daily source of fear and anxiety for many Hongkongers, including those in my constituency—both for themselves and for the fate of loved ones they have left behind.

Each act of Chinese aggression—political interference in this place, sanctions against parliamentarians, or outright acts of espionage, as we have seen—heightens the fear of Hongkongers that they might be next. In July and December, under the Hong Kong national security policy, arrest warrants with £100,000 bounties were issued for six exiled Hong Kong activists living in the United Kingdom. Closer to home, we had the incident at the Chinese consulate in Manchester. I hope that the Minister will reassure Hongkongers in my constituency today by setting out the measures the Home Office has in place to ensure their safety, given the unique threats they face.

As well as guaranteeing the safety of Hongkongers in the United Kingdom, we must work to ensure that their lives can be as happy and prosperous as possible. I will briefly touch on two related points before wrapping up. The first is the issue of accessing retirement savings. The Mandatory Provident Fund is a compulsory retirement scheme for the people of Hong Kong, which, for most Hongkongers, is their main pension pot. In theory, they should be able to withdraw it in full even if they choose to leave Hong Kong; in practice, vindictive policies stop them doing so, and have made it almost impossible for Hongkongers who have fled their homeland to access vital money for rebuilding their new lives. It is estimated by Hong Kong Watch that Hongkongers who have fled to the UK are being denied access to £3 billion in savings. Would the Minister be willing to have a conversation with colleagues in the Treasury about what more can be done to tackle this grave injustice?

I also encourage the Minister to have conversations with colleagues in the Department for Education on the issue of tuition fees. For many Hongkongers in England and Wales, higher education is rendered unaffordable by the requirement to pay the international rate of tuition fees, which stands in contrast with students who have come to the UK on other humanitarian pathways, such as those from Ukraine and Afghanistan, who have home fee status. This feels like an unfair discrepancy, and if we want Hongkongers to thrive in the UK, it is something that we should seriously look at.

I know that I have several asks of the Minister today, and that many of my colleagues will no doubt have done the same about various other important causes, at a time when, I know, asks of the Home Office are extremely significant, but we must not lose sight of Hong Kong. It cannot be forgotten about or pushed to the margins. That is not just because of what supporting Hongkongers says about our country’s commitment to the fundamental value of freedom, but because I know, from my own constituency, that if those who arrive from Hong Kong are given the support that they need, they can make an immense contribution to the communities that they now call home.

[Martin Vickers (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. To allow Mr Rand two minutes at the end to wind up, I will be calling the Front Benchers from 2.28 pm. If Members could limit their contribution to five minutes, I will have no need to impose a time limit.

13:41

[Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The context of this debate is that since the Chinese Government’s national security law was imposed and since the 2019 Hong Kong protests in support of democracy and human rights, 10,000 people have been arrested and 2,300 charged, and 150,000 Hongkongers have fled to Britain under the British national overseas visa scheme. To be clear, the scheme allows individuals to come and live in the UK, but does not grant formal refugee status. That is a point that I will return to shortly.

I want to pay tribute to the Hongkongers in my constituency of Bolton West, many of whom live in Westhoughton and in Horwich. In the most difficult of circumstances, they have moved thousands of miles away from their homeland in search of a better life. Yet all too often, Hongkongers tell me about their concerns for themselves and their families, loved ones, and friend —both those here in the UK and those still in Hong Kong. Let us not forget why we are having this debate today.

With that in mind, I wish to touch on a couple of points raised by my constituents. First, the BNO visa scheme, which was expanded in November 2022, allows individuals born after the handover of Hong Kong on 1 July 1997 to apply for the scheme independently of their BNO passport-holding parents. What that expanded scheme failed to address, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) has already mentioned, was that Hongkongers under the age of 18 on the day of the handover were unable to apply for BNO status themselves. Therefore Hongkongers born between 1 July 1979 and 30 June 1997 are currently stuck in a loophole, neither old enough to have applied for BNO status before the 1997 handover nor young enough to qualify under the November 2022 visa scheme expansion. My view is clear: Hongkongers within that age bracket should be able to access the BNO scheme to allow them to flee political persecution and join family members here in the UK. I ask the Government to look afresh at the operation of the scheme.

That takes me to my second point: many Hongkongers who hold BNO status are unable to access university education in the UK without student finance, because they are not eligible for home fee status. Some young Hongkongers find themselves in a position where they fled persecution but are having to pay up to £50,000 a year in university tuition fees. That not only prices them out of courses but denies them the opportunity to pursue professional careers. Whether that is because the BNO visa scheme does not grant refugee status is unclear to me, but I hope that the Government will be able to rectify the issue so that young Hongkongers who have fled persecution can proceed with their university studies.

Finally, I want to touch on repression. British citizen Jimmy Lai has been in prison in Hong Kong for over 1,500 days in solitary confinement. I take comfort from the Prime Minister’s comments earlier this week that securing his release “is a priority”, and we must urgently see that release happen.

Closer to home, I know from conversations with my own Hongkonger constituents that many continue to live in fear for their security, even here in the UK, and there has been a worrying pattern of behaviour over recent years. We have seen the Hong Kong national security police issue bounties for exiled Hongkongers now living in the UK, and we all remember the shocking and frankly unacceptable event in October 2022, when a BNO visa holder who was peacefully protesting outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester was assaulted by masked men, having been dragged into the grounds of the consulate. Those actions are unacceptable, constitute an assault on human rights and must be condemned in the strongest terms. I welcome the continued support that the Government provide to Hongkongers in the UK and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West for securing this important debate.

13:45

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this important debate. It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. Hongkongers live across the UK and in my constituency of Farnham and Bordon, including in Haslemere and Liphook. I declare an interest—this is also a plug—in that I am a member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China. If any Member in this room wishes to join, I encourage them to do so. We are not favoured by the Chinese Communist party, I can tell you that.

Among the many wise and important decisions that the Conservative Administration made over the last 14 years, one of the most important was launching a special immigration route in June 2020, in response to the escalating political situation and the Chinese Communist Government’s implementation of the dangerous and oppressive national security law. The visa has welcomed Hong Kong residents who hold British national overseas status, and their immediate families, to live, work and study in the UK, away from restrictions on their freedoms and political rights. Since the launch of the scheme in 2021, as has been mentioned, more than 150,000 Hongkongers have moved to Britain using that bespoke immigration pathway, with more than 26,000 emigrating over the past year. For many people, the scheme has not only been a lifeline, but has ensured their families’ survival and their own. We have seen many cases, including those mentioned today, involving brave political and democratic prisoners such as Jimmy Lai, Joshua Wong and Benny Tai.

First, I will address the important role that Hongkongers have played in key sectors, such as healthcare, which is my own background. My work in the health and social care system means I have seen the impact that BNO visas have had on the core institutions in this country, such as the NHS. As of June 2023, more than 700 Hongkongers are working in the NHS, with Asian people being the second largest nationality, next to British, working in our healthcare system. Access to services such as the NHS is available to anyone who resides in the UK, and BNO visa holders pay the immigration health surcharge during the application process. If they contribute to our system through their employment, it is only right that they benefit in their times of need.

My second point is about our security and defence policy. Alongside its allies Iran and Russia, the Chinese Communist party—the Government of China—is the single greatest threat to democracy, peace and freedom here in the United Kingdom and across the western world. As has been mentioned, that is evidenced by the crackdown on political and freedom of speech, as happened with Jimmy Lai, and its integration into international universities and education systems. We saw that specifically in the UK with the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, which was shelved by the Education Secretary over British universities’ desire to protect their operations against authoritarian states such as China. The protection granted to the Chinese state amid crackdowns on freedom is disastrous for not only British students, but for Hongkongers in the UK, and it creates problems with security. China does not believe in the dual national status of descendants, so they will continue to be recognised as Chinese nationals and therefore denied UK consular access, as in the case of Jimmy Lai. Only yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition reiterated Mr Lai’s case, and the Prime Minister agreed with the Opposition that his imprisonment was a breach of the 1984 treaty. In his party’s manifesto, the Prime Minister committed to continuing the Conservative-instated BNO visas.

However, the repression of democracy is not exclusive to the mainland and Hong Kong. As has been mentioned, we saw it here in the UK in the attacks on Hong Kong protesters in Chinatown in London, a 20-minute walk away from here, and outside the Chinese consulate in Manchester a year later. As a result, and for the protection of those to whom we issue BNO visas, it is essential to gauge a better understanding of the transnational threat that BNO holders face in the UK. I call on the Foreign Secretary, when he meets the Chinese Government, to raise these issues and absolutely confirm the new UK Government’s commitment to standing up for Hongkongers and against the Chinese Communist party. I have submitted questions over this to the Home Office about naturalisation and British citizenship protections.

Finally, in the 20 seconds left to me, I want to reiterate my earlier point about freedom. China is a country where dissent is stifled and free speech tightly controlled. The internet, a tool of liberation and information in many parts of the world, is censored. Citizens who speak out against the Government or challenge the state’s narrative can face imprisonment or worse. We must not let the plight of Hongkongers in Hong Kong or in Britain be ignored or put to the side, so I ask this of the Minister. We must stand up for them, and I welcome the commitment that I hope she will give in a moment to that cause.

13:50

[Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak under you in the Chair, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), who will clearly be a massive asset on this issue. I thank the many organisations that have chipped in on it, but I want to speak to three points raised primarily by constituents who are directly affected as BNO Hongkongers on their practical experience here.

The first point is to reiterate what has been said about university and non-home fees. Many BNO Hongkongers are simply priced out of higher education in the UK, despite the reason why they are here—persecution in Hong Kong. They already have to pay the health surcharge. There are higher fees for being here to begin with, before even looking at paying the overseas student fee rate, which is not applicable to others. This is a doubly egregious issue, because residents from almost all British overseas territories have been eligible for home fee status at UK universities since 2007, but BNOs are not eligible, because they had their rights stripped away in 1997. I hope that the Minister will commit today to at least examining the restoration of those rights, to allow more Hongkongers to benefit from reduced rates.

There is, of course, the parallel with those who are granted leave under other schemes; those for Ukrainians have already been mentioned. I would like to see that generosity extended to those who make a permanent home in my Southwark, London constituency, as well as other constituencies that have been mentioned.

Time is tight, so apologies if I am rattling through this rather fast, but the Mandatory Provident Fund is also of significant concern. Hongkongers are being denied the £3 billion of compulsory retirement savings that has been mentioned, despite proof that they have resettled abroad. The Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority released a statement in March 2021 saying that because the BNO passport was no longer recognised by the Hong Kong Government as a valid travel or identity document, those trying to withdraw funds could not use the BNO system. That has led to funds being frozen, in contradiction to what representatives of some of the firms involved have told our colleagues in the Canadian Parliament. I hope to hear from the Minister that the collapse in Sino-British relations will not prevent Ministers from probing the companies directly involved about delivering on their legal obligations.

No one should be prevented from accessing their funds just because they hold a BNO passport or visa, but there are already examples of that happening in the UK, including to a Hongkonger single mother who was unable to afford a heater for her son. She was denied £57,000-worth of her MPF, and a family of five were unable to afford a wheelchair-accessible property for their disabled child because their MPF was withheld. I think that the Minister is probing some of the companies. Just to give an example, HSBC oversees five MPF schemes and manages approximately 29% of the total MPF market. This should not be ignored. Although I welcome the audit, we cannot wait for the end of it to look at some of the interplaying issues and relationships. We need action on this, and perhaps it would be useful to call in some of these companies to examine how they are supporting BNO Hongkongers now. Hongkongers have asked for documents that they can present to the MPF holder, representing a formalised commitment to apply for British citizenship. I hope that the Minister will look at that.

My final point is on security. We have heard about Manchester, and there are examples in Surrey and in my own constituency of cyber-security issues, as well as physical harassment and intimidation, following, the disruption of meetings and the prevention of the booking of meetings at venues. Those are simple things that are being done to try to deny people the right to rebuild and live a normal life here in the UK. Transnational repression is completely unacceptable. Some of those responsible have been shown to work for the Hong Kong Economic Trade Office here in the UK. Why does it still have diplomatic status? I have asked Ministers about that. Again, the audit is one area that might look at that in the longer term, but we could look at it now. The US has sanctioned 49 Hong Kong representatives. We are yet to move in the same way, and Ministers should look at that now.

Will the Minister give us a steer on protective measures that could come forward sooner? We have the Community Security Trust to protect synagogues and the protective security for mosques scheme. Something similar that specialises in the situation that Hong Kong BNO holders face, as well as training and support for the police authorities involved, would be incredibly useful. I have written to the Security Minister on that specific issue and I hope to hear from him soon that that offer of security will be afforded, because we cannot let those who have fled communist persecution abroad be subject to communist persecution here in the UK.

13:55

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing this debate. I associate myself with his comments about how the previous Government should be congratulated on honouring the BNO scheme in the first place.

My borough of Sutton is home to more than 5,000 people on the BNO scheme. I represent the eastern half of the borough in Carshalton and Wallington, and my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) will talk about the west side in Sutton and Cheam later. We have had lots of constituents coming to us to share their concerns, some of which have been aired already. The one that came up most on the doorstep and in the events that I hosted was about access to jobs, and qualifications not being recognised. More specifically, in our area it was about social work. There seem to be quite a lot of Hongkonger social workers in my area. Their qualifications were not being recognised because they had not had the required conversion courses or because an unco-operative Hong Kong Government were holding back proof of their careers and qualifications.

I am also a local councillor and I was aware that Sutton council desperately needed social workers, so I reached out to my local council and asked whether there was anything we could do. I am pleased to say that next month we will be launching an innovative internship programme where we have linked up with a local university, Kingston University, which has been providing formal study for Hong Kong social workers that we have identified. They will also get the opportunity to get some in-the-field experience with social workers who are already employed by Sutton council. We hope that that will result in the necessary recognition of their qualifications by Social Work England.

I am sure that that problem is widespread across the UK and perhaps in other professions, too. I know that there are some debates about what constitutes formal study, but I would really like to work with the Minister to see whether we can find a way of scaling up this kind of initiative across the country so that we can get a lot more of these qualified Hongkongers recognised and into the work that they are skilled at.

I have a statistic that I want to share. Somebody told me that up to 98% of the Hongkongers that have arrived in recent years have a degree. They have the skills and we need those skills, so let us make sure that they can put them to good use. My next point around university admissions has already been raised a couple of times. It has been a frequent complaint that despite the fact that all the arrivals are extremely well qualified academically, as demonstrated by the figure that I just mentioned, they are worried about their children not being able to access the same level of education because of the scale of fees that international students face. They tell me that they have British national status, but that it does not feel that way when applying for university, so that is something we need to fix.

Finally, the point about security has been well made already. It is critical that Hongkongers feel safe in the United Kingdom. We all know why they fled, but they are still living in fear of surveillance and persecution here. I have mentioned the Hong Kong Government holding back qualifications so that Hongkongers cannot get the work that they need here, and there is evidence of other records that they need access to being destroyed. They have been holding on to criminal records for things that we should not recognise in this country, such as taking part in protests. Pension entitlements, which I think have already been mentioned, are also being held back.

Closer to home, for a long time there were widespread reports of some sort of secret Chinese police station operating out of Croydon, around the corner from me. I have to put it on record that the Met found no evidence out of that, but that demonstrates the fear among the Hong Kong community. We have also heard repeated concerns about Confucius institutes at universities, which have called for lecturers and others to be sacked and intimidated Hongkongers so that they feel they need to be silent.

The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) mentioned cyber-harassment. My borough council experienced that when an event we put on to welcome Hongkongers was subject to a series of threatening posts telling people that they should not attend and making up all sorts of reasons why it should not go ahead.

As a local MP, I will always stand up for my constituents’ rights. As a country, we have a duty to ensure that all our citizens feel this is a democratic, free country, full of opportunity for them. I hope we can deliver that for Hongkongers.

14:00

[Blair McDougall (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing this debate.

Before I was elected, I worked with dissidents, democrats and human rights defenders, including many in the territory of the People’s Republic of China. Earlier this week, along with the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean), I was elected to chair the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, and like the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) I am a member of IPAC. These issues have always been of political interest to me, but since my election they have also become constituency issues. As with many other Members, many of the 144,000 Hongkongers who have come to join us in this country have decided to settle in my constituency of East Renfrewshire, and in particular in Newton Mearns. They always say three things: first and foremost, that they are delighted to be here; secondly, that they wish the weather were better in Scotland—

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

So do we!

[Blair McDougall]

We do.

Thirdly, those Hongkongers say that, although they are now living in a free country, they are not living free from fear. It is little wonder, given that in Glasgow we had a similar story to the one the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington recounted: there were reports of a secret police station being run in the basement of the Loon Fung Chinese restaurant. Like the previous Government, this Government have made it clear on many occasions that such oppression on British soil is not acceptable, but I would be interested to hear what more can be done and whether we can keep under review the diplomatic privileges given to organisations such as the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office to ensure they are not used as organs of transnational repression.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) asked what extra support can be given to make diaspora groups serving Hongkongers in the UK more resilient to that repression. In addition, can work be done to come up with an accepted definition of “transnational oppression”? This debate is about Hongkongers, but autocrats are increasingly reaching beyond their own borders, so this issue affects many other diaspora groups.

Other Members mentioned Jimmy Lai, and his case rests on all our consciences. He is a 77-year-old man whose health is failing, and he is in solitary confinement in a Hong Kong jail, in the baking heat. He has been denied independent medical access and consular access, and is facing a life sentence after a trial without a jury. That case rests heavily on the minds of Hongkongers, who are unsure whether they will be able to access consular assistance if something goes wrong. I urge the Minister to address that and assure Hongkongers, including BNOs, that by default they will be treated as British nationals for the purpose of consular assistance.

I echo the concerns other Members have mentioned about electronic travel authorisation. The assumption that if someone has had a custodial sentence of more than 12 months they would be refused such an authorisation particularly worries Hongkongers, because if someone has been a political prisoner—or they are one of the more than 1,000 political prisoners still in Hong Kong— the average sentence is far longer than 12 months. It would make it far harder for them to flee here if they needed to.

What I and other hon. Members are asking the Minister today is about the principle that Hongkongers are British, and because they are British they deserve the same protections, privileges and opportunities as any British citizen. That has a wider symbolic importance for us, as well. We are engaged in a global struggle between autocrats and liberal democracies. The people of Hong Kong stood up and said what side of that battle they were on. For all the brutality and repression they face, we have to show that we as a country will continue to stand beside them, and that we have clearly chosen a side in that global struggle.

14:06

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for the second or third time this week, Mr Vickers. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on setting the scene so well. By pursuing this debate he has given us all an opportunity to make a contribution in support of his thoughts. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), and I look forward to many more debates together.

I have long been an advocate for the people of Hong Kong, and for their right to live in Hong Kong without bowing the knee to China. The outrageous actions by the Chinese Government have ripped through the Sino-British joint declaration. I say this with great respect, but I believe that our lack of fulsome responses embolden the Chinese, as has been exemplified by the fact that the Chinese continue to break international treaties. I still believe that diplomatic action should be taken, but that is not the focus of today’s debate.

I welcomed and supported the Conservative Government’s approach, and I am pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), in his place. He, I and others in this Chamber supported the BNO visa, and have welcomed the 150,000 Hongkongers who have used it, some of who came to my constituency. I welcome the Minister to her place; she and I have been friends for many years on the Back Benches where we warmed the seats regularly. She is now a Minister and I wish her well; I look forward to her answers to the points we will make.

The visa for the Hongkongers allows them to come to our shores and live a life free from oppressions. They have indefinite leave to remain and qualify for permanent residency after five years, and British citizenship after six years. It is right and proper that we offer them a way of escape, and that is exactly what it is. It is a chance for some freedom and liberty.

I want to put on record, as the Library briefing outlines, that a single adult can apply for a five-year BNO visa and would pay £250 application fee and an immigration health surcharge of £5,175. The visa gives people permission to come and live in the UK with few restrictions, and it also gives them access to most benefits, tax credits and housing assistance paid by the state. I put that on record because it is my opinion that this is the bare minimum, and that we must enhance their ability to apply for help with, for example, home fee status or student finance in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, for which their third level students are currently ineligible. I ask the Minister whether we can review that. I know that she is eager to help, and I am sure she will do her best to come back with something positive.

Security concerns remain for Hongkongers living in the UK. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) is not here, but he made that point clearly in his intervention. Reports of police service stations have been made. I have been contacted by some constituents about their safety in Northern Ireland, and I have made the police in my constituency of Strangford aware of that. People from other constituencies in Northern Ireland have contacted me to say that their phones are being tapped. My constituent came with all the evidence, and the PSNI became involved.

People have concerns about their family back home in Hong Kong, and because they have family they are conscious that whatever they do or say, the Chinese authorities—or whoever it may be—are keeping a tab on them. They believe that this is operating in Belfast, and the evidence seems to prove that. I chair the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief, and I will give another example of an incident that happened this year. Statements that the APPG put out were hacked. I do not understand technology and am very old school—pens and pencils are my method—but they reworded articles that asked questions about the actions of the Chinese, and turned them into favourable pieces on the APPG website. We took the necessary action to knock that on the head.

That shows that there is an evidential base for Chinese intrusion into every bit of life, for anybody that happens to have a different opinion or expresses it in a different way. Those who believe themselves to be under scrutiny most likely are.

I fully support the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West prioritising this issue in his role as an MP. I support the calls for greater support for those people who understandably feel, and which has been evidentially proved, that they have been abandoned and left at the mercy of the Chinese. We can all say with great honesty that mercy and the Chinese Communist party are two alien concepts—they do not usually go together. We must do more. I look to the Minister to begin to do more today and I say to her that we are here to support her in those efforts.

14:11

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing a really important debate today. Over the last 18 months and during the election campaign, I had the privilege of meeting Hongkongers in Leeds. Listening to their experiences shed much more light on the ongoing denial of human rights and democratic values in Hong Kong. They told me of the important work they were doing across Yorkshire, including supporting the estimated 4,000 people who have settled in Leeds since 2020. Around one third of those live in my constituency of Leeds South West and Morley. This is an issue that is both very important to me and very close to me.

More than 10,000 people have been arrested in the protest-related cases since the start of the pro-democracy movement in 2019. That includes, as has been referenced today by many Members, the British citizen Jimmy Lai, who has been behind bars for years. He faces life imprisonment under the national security law for, quite simply, telling the truth.

Given that we recognise why Hongkongers are leaving their country, it is essential that we consider security and access to services for those who come to the UK. Because of the time constraints in this debate, I will focus on one specific aspect of security—transnational repression.

Many British national overseas visa holders remain concerned about the threat of transnational repression against both them and their families back in Hong Kong. Some 97% of respondents to a survey conducted by Hongkongers in Leeds supported the strengthening of action against transnational repression. Worryingly, more than half of those that responded to that survey agreed that they themselves would not speak up against the injustices in Hong Kong, due to their fear that their families still in Hong Kong would face consequences. They also questioned whether they would ever be able to return to Hong Kong should they criticise the Chinese Government.

Members of the Hong Kong community in Leeds, including those in Leeds South West and Morley, have reported facing ongoing intimidation and harassment, which is something that I would like to share with hon. Members today. At several events organised by Hongkongers in Leeds, individuals were seen photographing attendees without their consent. Some attendees were even threatened with claims that the photos taken of them would be shared with the authorities in Hong Kong to prevent them from ever being allowed to return home. Threats have also occurred on social media in Leeds, with the Leeds Hong Kong community Facebook page being shared in far-right circles, in an attempt to cause agitation. Worse still, the personal information of prominent activists in the Hong Kong community in Leeds—phone numbers and personal addresses—has been shared publicly, in an attempt to humiliate and endanger them.

The experiences, threats and intimidation that the people of Hong Kong and the Hongkongers based in Leeds face today are concerns that are continuously raised with me as the constituency MP, and were raised prior to that, when I was the candidate for the constituency. We know that this behaviour is being encouraged by the Chinese Government—we know that. In the survey of Leeds Hongkongers, which was carried out prior to the general election, only 18% of respondents agreed that the UK Government provide a safe environment for them from the Chinese Government. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment to take a proactive approach to countering the most acute forms of state-directed threats to individuals.

I encourage the Minister to consider additional provisions in the state threats aggravating factor to cover criminal actions aimed at individuals who are identified by a foreign power as a dissident. Doing so would be a recognition that the naming of individuals is a form of state threat behaviour, too, even if the state does not issue a directive to harm the individual in question.

We must work continually to support Hongkongers to live freely, both in Hong Kong and the UK—free from threats, free from intimidation, free from repression. It is crucial for our democracy and the values we espouse to keep all our citizens safe.

14:15

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for setting up this important debate. For me, this debate is freighted with some emotion for very personal reasons. When I was a student many years ago—this will give away my age somewhat—I helped to organise for Martin Lee to speak at my university. I remember how hard campaigners like him fought to establish a vibrant democracy in Hong Kong. I remember the hope we had for the future. It is heartbreaking to see how the situation has unfolded: with China’s promises turning to ash; with the repression that my hon. Friends have talked about; with publications like Apple Daily being shut down; and with British citizens such as Jimmy Lai resting in prison, denied their basic rights.

China, as the Prime Minister said, has clearly broken its agreement with Britain, but far more importantly, it has breached its covenant with the people of Hong Kong to respect their rights and freedoms and to allow them to live in the way that they were promised. In so doing, it has struck at the very heart of what makes Hong Kong so special.

[Jim Shannon]

At last week’s business questions, I brought attention to Jimmy Lai and the fact that he was denied his religious liberty. He was denied the Eucharist as a devout, practising Roman Catholic. That is how far China is prepared to go. There is an example of what the hon. Gentleman is talking about—he is absolutely right.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky]

I thank the hon. Member for his point. Absolutely—Mr Lai’s treatment is appalling. I welcome the Prime Minister’s words yesterday in the Chamber about the way he will hold China accountable for that, alongside engagement.

I am also incredibly proud of the way in which my community in Hendon and communities across the UK have welcomed new arrivals from Hong Kong. In Hendon, we have a large and growing Hong Kong population, particularly in Colindale. It adds so much to the life of our community, but those people have some serious concerns, as many others have expressed. I shall not echo in great detail the points that others have excellently made, but many of my constituents face great difficulty in accessing their savings and their futures through the MPF, and local financial institutions are not doing enough to help.

Similarly, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) made an incredibly important point about the recognition of qualifications; that is a real challenge for people in Hendon. We have also talked about access to public services, which includes everything from getting a national insurance number to finding schools, and about BNO status and ETAs.

The point I would like to rest on is that of transnational repression. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington mentioned overseas police stations, one of which was allegedly identified in my constituency. It is completely unacceptable that people in this country face surveillance, repression and threat simply for exercising their democratic rights—and that extends to the treatment of Members of this place.

Time is tight, so I will finish by echoing the points already made and by urging the Government to do what China has not: renew our covenant with the people of Hong Kong. I thank the Minister for her work on this issue.

14:19

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing this important debate. Political and socioeconomic affairs in Hong Kong remain so important to us here because of our history, and like everyone, I welcomed the clear cross-party support for reintroducing the BNO visa for Hongkongers. I am very pleased to represent the constituency of Rushcliffe in the south of Nottinghamshire, which has become home to many members of the Hong Kong community over the past three years. There are now over 1,000 Hongkongers living in my constituency and it has been a genuine privilege to meet and get to know them at recent events.

I want to take this opportunity to highlight the great work locally of East Midlands Councils, which hosts our regional welcome hub. As part of the Hong Kong welcome programme, EMC has provided a range of resources, events and services for our Hong Kong community. As a council leader between 2022 and 2024, I saw at first hand the positive impact of that programme. I am therefore very pleased that funding for the welcome programme was renewed in March. Long may that programme and the BNO visa scheme continue. We should also applaud the outstanding work and extra effort of all councils to ensure that Hongkongers have been welcomed. I would like to encourage the Government to consider a number of measures—some of which have already been mentioned—to ensure that members of my local Hong Kong community can continue to play a vibrant role in helping our economy to grow.

The first point I want to make is that many 18-years-olds in Rushcliffe and across our country started university this autumn, but thousands of young BNO Hongkongers in the UK simply did not have that option, as they are not currently eligible for student finance or home fee status. That is a generation of talented young Hongkongers who are waiting to access our higher education system, despite having top grades in their A-levels and having so much to offer this country as doctors, teachers, scientists or in other skilled professions. It is my sincere hope that colleagues can work across parties to resolve that issue.

Secondly, some of my constituents have told me that they are struggling to access the Mandatory Provident Fund savings. I welcome the Government raising this issue directly with the appropriate organisations, and I encourage Ministers to continue to urge for early drawdown of those funds. That is straightforward for other Hong Kong residents who move overseas permanently; the discrimination against BNOs is unacceptable.

Thirdly, on a very practical level, I know that my constituents would value greater control over the provision of English language teaching. I understand that funding is not always provided up front, meaning that the incentives for colleges to support English language tuition can be limited. The Hong Kong community groups local to me have said that they would welcome the ability to lead on those courses themselves with fewer funding constraints.

Fourthly, I am aware of members of the Hong Kong community having issues accessing the equivalent of Disclosure and Barring Service checks and facing challenges translating qualifications from one system to another, as was alluded to earlier. When we have known shortages in this country of GPs, teachers, nurses and other professionals, I encourage Ministers to look afresh at how to expedite the transition of Hongkongers into higher value, more productive jobs in this country, which will in turn benefit our wider community.

Fifthly, it is worth remembering that there are some asylum seekers from Hong Kong in our community, as well as those who have come under the formal scheme.

Finally, I know that this Government have sensibly committed to a China audit. My constituents really welcome that initiative and would like to see it brought forward as soon as is practically possible. I hope it will look carefully at key policy areas such as security, technology, trade, education and human rights, reflecting the concerns raised with me when engaging with this important and welcomed part of my local community.

14:24

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) for securing this important debate. I also thank the Minister for Migration and Citizenship for hearing from us all today. This week I had the opportunity to engage with the Hong Kong Democracy Council and Hong Kong Watch, and to attend a meeting with the all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong. These discussions provided valuable insights into the key topics surrounding the current debate, with headline concerns around transnational repression, access to the £3 billion held hostage in mandatory provident funds in UK banks, eligibility gaps in the BNO scheme, and access to home fees at UK universities for BNO visa holders.

Hongkongers are an integral part of the community in my constituency of Sutton and Cheam. I am proud to represent thousands of residents originally from Hong Kong. Our area, known for its proximity to central London, family-friendly atmosphere and outstanding schools, is a welcoming place for those looking to make a new start. My constituency is a mosaic of multicultural communities that enrich modern London. From Hongkongers to Ukrainians and Afghanis to Tamils, I take immense pride in representing an area that stands as a crucial sanctuary for those fleeing persecution abroad. In Sutton and Cheam, we embrace the unique backgrounds of every resident in a community where diversity is valued and celebrated.

Tragically, however, because of the actions of an overseas state, many of my constituents are afraid to show their faces at demonstrations here in London advocating for democracy in Hong Kong. How can it be acceptable that they feel it necessary to wear face coverings and masks to conceal their identity, to avoid repercussions for themselves, their families and their friends? Many of the residents I represent live in fear of being photographed on the street by those acting on behalf of the Chinese Communist party, worried that these images could be used to target and persecute their families back in Hong Kong. Such a fear tactic has no place in our democracy. I am deeply appalled that it is happening right here under our noses. With the Chinese Government expanding their embassy operations with the volunteer recruitment scheme designed to surveil dissent against the CCP, the anxiety is likely only to escalate among my and many others’ constituents.

This kind of transnational repression is not just happening at major protests in central London. Just last year, former Hong Kong Chief Executive, Leung Chun-ying, took to social media to criticise the promotion of a children’s day camp put on by Hongkongers in Sutton in my constituency; that was mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). The day camp celebrated a series of books titled “Sheep Village”, which aim to teach children about justice, civil liberties and human rights, informing a new generation of the context behind Hongkongers’ struggles against CCP influence.

The event illustrates the extensive surveillance the Hong Kong special administrative region—HKSAR—can exercise in our capital. A seemingly small community book event at a local church in my constituency could be swiftly reported to CCP officials in Hong Kong, exposing my constituents to potentially life-changing consequences. This reality not only raises serious concerns about personal safety, but also highlights the chilling effect on freedom of expression in my constituency. It should simply go without saying that no one on UK soil should ever feel threatened by another country for standing up for their freedom. If we are to continue to be a beacon of light and hope for those fleeing oppression, we cannot stand for such blatant disregard for the values of openness and freedom that we cherish in Britain.

I must also draw attention to a critical oversight in the British national overseas visa scheme. Since its launch in 2021 under the previous Government—I again congratulate and thank them for their action—more than 160,000 Hongkongers have utilised the pathway to seek refuge in the UK, but a troubling loophole exists, as has been mentioned. Individuals aged between 27 and 45 are unable to access this vital lifeline unless they came to Britain as part of a family unit. That has meant that many young Hongkongers who want to take up the offer are unable to do so. The needless exclusion leaves many vulnerable to the increasingly oppressive regime of the Chinese Communist party back in Hong Kong. Why should an uncontrollable variable such as age determine an individual’s ability to escape oppression?

We recognise that the scheme has evolved and developed as the situation in Hong Kong has changed, but we encourage the Government to take action. As we have all identified today, this mistake needs to be corrected. Taking action to plug the gap in the BNO visa scheme is plainly the right thing to do, so can we please expand it to ensure that Hongkongers of all ages can live in Britain with their families?

The Liberal Democrats stand firmly behind the people of Hong Kong and their democratic freedoms, both abroad and in Britain. The CCP is exerting transnational oppression right here on our doorsteps. Inaction is not the answer—not if we are to meet our obligations and continue to be a moral leader and champion of democracy around the world. Britain and Hong Kong’s stories are intermingled. Our colonial history has made that so. It leaves us today with a profound imperative to not abandon the people of that great city wherever they now reside, and to ensure the flame of freedom that they have never shrunk from carrying with them is not extinguished. We urge the Minister to ensure that the Foreign Secretary raises the concerns highlighted in this debate with the Chinese and Hong Kong Governments at every opportunity.

Just metres from this place, a statue of Millicent Fawcett stands in Parliament Square. Inscribed on it are the words:

“Courage calls to courage everywhere”.

The people of Hong Kong are showing their courage, and it is calling out to us. Let us answer that call.

14:31

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Vickers, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing the debate. I responded to a debate he spoke in earlier this week, and he is typically courteous and cares deeply about his constituency. He will be a really good voice in this House over the next five years, particularly on issues such as this.

The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West mentioned the large diaspora of Hongkongers in his constituency. He also rightly outlined the challenges in this country’s relationship with China and the many loopholes within the scheme set up by the previous Government. However, I thank him for giving credit to the previous Government for instigating the scheme. The fact that he put the credit in the right place shows that he has excellent judgment, and we look forward to that excellent judgment being shown during his career in this House.

The hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) mentioned Jimmy Lai. As His Majesty’s Official Opposition, we absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments welcoming the Prime Minister’s remarks in the House yesterday. We stand with those remarks and look forward to seeing the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister challenge the Chinese in the future.

My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) was right to mention the previous Government’s commitment to ensuring that we welcomed many Hongkongers, including in my constituency of Hamble Valley. I know that through his activism he will encourage the new Government to challenge the Chinese Government in the meetings that the Foreign Secretary is shortly to hold.

I thank Members from all parties for their contributions today, which struck the right tone. I am heartened by the continued support for BNO visa holders who come to this country, where they can rely on the rule of law, developed and protected institutions and a stable democratic system regardless of which party is in charge. Since the introduction of the BNO visa scheme in January 2021, we have witnessed a remarkable response, with more than 210,843 individuals seeking to live, work and study in the UK. This visa route, which is available to those with British national overseas status and their eligible family members, has provided a lifeline for many fleeing the erosion of freedoms in Hong Kong, a place once known for its vibrant democracy but now facing unprecedented challenges.

The number of applicants illustrates the urgent desire of Hongkongers to find safety and stability. However, with that influx comes responsibility. We must ensure that our support systems are prepared to meet the needs of these new residents, enabling them to integrate fully into our society. Although the BNO visa allows holders to work in nearly any capacity and study in the UK, it does not grant access to public funds. That exclusion can create significant challenges for individuals who might find themselves in precarious financial situations on arrival. For example, many BNO visa holders have reported difficulties in securing employment that matches their skills and experience.

A survey conducted by the Welcoming Committee for Hong Kongers revealed that 40% of respondents felt that their financial health had worsened since arriving in the UK, with rising living costs further complicating their integration. Moreover, although a large majority of respondents—90%—reported having established connections with local communities, language barriers continue to pose a significant hurdle. More than a third of BNO holders rated their English skills as poor, which hinders their ability to find suitable employment and to participate fully in society.

The ongoing need for language support underscores the importance of the Hong Kong BNO welcome programme, which aims to assist such individuals as they navigate their new lives. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West was right to raise the case of those with criminal records who were refused under the scheme under the previous Government. Can the Minister outline the line that the new Government will take that?

Another pressing issue that has arisen is the difficulty many Hongkongers face in accessing their pension funds, which remain trapped in the Mandatory Provident Fund system in Hong Kong. Under the regulations, those emigrating on the BNO passport cannot access their retirement savings until the age of 65. That situation poses a significant financial burden, especially for those who have relocated permanently and are now struggling to establish their lives in the UK. Reports have surfaced of individuals who, due to their involvement in the pro-democracy protests, left Hong Kong with their life savings inaccessible, jeopardising their financial stability within the United Kingdom.

The welcome programme launched in April 2021 represents a crucial step towards successful integration. It includes demand-led funding for local authorities to provide English-language and destitution support, an online welcome pack for newcomers, and a network of welcome hubs across the United Kingdom. Such initiatives are vital in supporting BNO holders to settle into their communities. For the upcoming financial year, I welcome the fact that the Government have announced that £1 million is being targeted on employability and mental health support for BNO visa holders, highlighting the Government’s recognition of the unique challenges faced by this community.

As we look to the future, however, it is clear that we need to do more. The new Government have made a commitment to a strategic approach to managing our relationship with China. That must also encompass a firm stance on the rights of those who have chosen to make the UK their home and must include addressing the complex dynamics of our bilateral relationship while standing in solidarity with Hongkongers who have fled oppression. The Government must continue to push for action under the Sino-British agreement of 1984, which is being breached consistently by the Chinese Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon outlined.

The Government have acknowledged such challenges, stating that they are working with the Hong Kong authorities to address the barriers preventing BNO visa holders from withdrawing their funds. Not only is the issue of access to funds a bureaucratic hurdle, but it directly impacts on the ability of Hongkongers to secure housing, support their families and build a future within the United Kingdom.

In conclusion, let us reaffirm our commitment to supporting Hongkongers in the United Kingdom. We must ensure that our visa routes are not merely a means of entry, but a genuine pathway to integration and opportunity, which I think we can say has happened with the Hong Kong community. That includes providing adequate resources to help individuals adjust to life in the United Kingdom, ensuring access to essential services and advocating for fair treatment regarding their financial assets. It is our duty as a House as well as the duty of the Government and the Opposition to ensure that the promises made to Hongkongers are honoured, reflecting the values of compassion and justice that define our nation.

14:38

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing the debate, which has given rise to powerful speeches by hon. Members from all parties.

Members have spoken up for their constituents and about their experiences and I will try to address as many of the points made as possible. Many issues were covered, whether that was the BNO visa route, security issues at home and in Hong Kong, pensions, home university fees, democratic freedoms, police stations and more.

I also thank the Front-Bench speakers, the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for their contributions. The issue has had cross-party support in the past, and I am sure we will continue to work in that spirit in support of Hongkongers in the UK and those who may come here in the future.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West will recognise that I may not be able to address all the issues raised today. Some of these complex matters need cross-departmental work, whether that is with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or the DFE. I hope that I will cover most of the issues in my comments today, but I assure all hon. and right hon. Members that we will look at all the issues raised. I also pay tribute to the work of Hong Kong Watch and others in sharing their experience and research.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West will be aware, the Government are deeply committed to supporting members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK. I think I speak for all of us when I say that Hongkongers have become an integral part of our economy and local communities, and make fantastic contributions to our national life.

I will speak first about the Hong Kong BNO visa route. The route was established in 2021 in response to the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong, which significantly impacts the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong. The BNO route reflects the UK’s historic and moral responsibility for and commitment to the people of Hong Kong. Since its launch, more than 209,000 people have been granted a BNO visa, of whom more than 150,000 have arrived in the UK. Those Hongkongers are free to live, work and study in virtually any capacity on a pathway to British citizenship. I am sure we will welcome many more Hongkongers to the UK in future so that they can also build a new life for themselves here.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I asked about students across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and here in England, as well—the Minister may be coming to it, but if she is not, I hope she will. I underlined that there is a clear issue relating to students from Hong Kong having the same opportunities as those who are born here. I urge the Minister to give us an answer on that.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and will come on to that point.

I will deal first with questions around the expansion of the BNO route, in particular to people born between 1979 and 1997. A number of Members have suggested that the BNO route should be expanded to include those who were children at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997 but whose parents did not register them for BNO status. The BNO route reflects the UK’s historic commitment to those who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up BNO status, and we continue to uphold those commitments. Those not eligible for the BNO route need to consider other available UK immigration routes, for example as a student, graduate or skilled worker. I am sure that Members will understand that I am unable to make any policy commitments in this forum, but I want to give assurances that I will take their comments away and consider the points that have been raised today.

I will also address the point about criminality. The standard immigration rules on criminality and other adverse behaviours apply to applications through the BNO route. However, all applications are carefully assessed against the latest country information, and guidance for caseworkers provides flexibility to ensure that overseas convictions for offences—particularly those not recognised in the UK—do not result in the automatic refusal of an application. I am aware of the concerns of those applying through the BNO route, and of the risk of their being refused on suitability grounds because of a conviction for what I think we can describe as politically motivated or trumped-up criminal charges in Hong Kong. I assure hon. Members that I am keeping the issue under review.

On the question of access to services, I thank hon. Members for their comments about the Government’s welcome programme, which we have remained committed to and which is now entering its fourth year of funding. That very important programme enables Hongkongers to access support on a range of issues, including employment, education, housing and the English language. It helps them seek employment, build skills and learn more about life in the UK so they can play a bigger part in their local communities.

As the shadow Minister said, there is currently £1 million of funding for voluntary and community-sector organisations to deliver projects focused on employability and mental health and wellbeing. The Growth Company has been funded to deliver the Jobs for Hongkongers initiative, which will help BNOs in England find employment. I am aware of other good examples. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) talked about a scheme, and I would be interested to hear more about how those local initiatives are working.

International fees are a concern for those on the BNO route, who can study and work in virtually any capacity. Generally, to be eligible for student support, home fee status and fee caps, a student must have settled status in the UK, and ordinarily they must have been resident in the UK for three years prior to the start of their course. The majority of BNO status holders will be able to qualify for home fee status and student finance once they have obtained settlement in the UK, subject to meeting the normal eligibility requirements. The eligibility criteria apply to all students, except persons granted international protection by the Home Office, but I have heard what hon. Members have said today.

On the Mandatory Provident Fund, hon. Members raised the very serious matter of the estimated £3 billion of funds alleged to have been frozen. We know that individuals who have chosen to take up the BNO visa route have difficulty drawing down early their pensions held in the Hong Kong Mandatory Provident Fund. Although documentary requirements for withdrawing funds early are a matter for the Hong Kong authorities, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has raised the issue directly with the Hong Kong Government and the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority. We have urged them to facilitate the early drawdown of funds, as is the case for other Hong Kong residents who move overseas permanently, and we have made it clear that such discrimination against BNOs is unacceptable. I will certainly keep that under review.

On security, we take the protection of Hongkongers’ rights, freedoms and safety in the UK very seriously, and we continue to assess potential threats in the UK. We work closely across Government, as well as with the relevant agencies and law enforcement bodies, to protect persons identified as being at risk and ensure the UK is a safe and welcoming place for those who choose to settle here. I want to be clear that attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harm critics overseas are unacceptable. Freedom of speech and the other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law, regardless of nationality. We will challenge where we must to protect our national security and values. We are also working to improve the UK’s capability to understand and respond to the challenges and opportunities that China poses through an audit of the UK’s relationship with China as a bilateral and global actor.

It is also worth saying in response to the cyber-security issues that have been raised that the National Security Act 2023 gives the police new powers to protect the public from these malign threats, including those actions that amount to transnational repression—I take the point about the need for a clear definition. The Act brings together vital new measures to protect the UK’s national security, creating a whole suite of measures to enable our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies to deter, detect and disrupt the full range of modern state threats.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I am conscious of time and I want to make a couple of final points before wrapping up.

A concern was raised about whether there were plans to shut down the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, but its status is enshrined in primary legislation and there are no plans to change that framework.

On Jimmy Lai, we continue to call on Hong Kong authorities to immediately release British national Jimmy Lai. Mr Lai’s case, as has been mentioned by the Prime Minister this week, is a priority for the Government. The Foreign Secretary raised Jimmy Lai’s case in his first meeting with China’s Foreign Minister at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in July. We continue to raise his case. UK diplomats from our consulate general in Hong Kong continue to attend his court proceedings on a regular basis and will continue to do so when the trial resumes in November. We are deeply concerned about the allegations about his treatment in prison and have sought reassurances on appropriate medical treatment.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West for securing the debate, and all hon. Members for their contributions. It has been an incredibly important, thoughtful and well-informed debate. It is important that we take this opportunity to reaffirm this Government’s commitment to the people of Hong Kong and to the BNO route, which provides long-term safety and stability for Hongkongers in the UK.

14:52

[Mr Rand]

I thank everyone for their contributions today. It is really encouraging to see the level of cross-party support on this vital issue. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for his kind words about me, and for his contribution. I thank the Minister very much for her strong words in support of Hong Kong and her constructive engagement with the points raised in the debate.

We had some immensely powerful contributions from Members today. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for being the first to raise the case of Jimmy Lai and I thank others who have spoken about that case. It was really encouraging to hear the Prime Minister’s strong words on that case earlier in the week and to hear the Minister reaffirm those today.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) for speaking so powerfully, as always, about the plight of those in Hong Kong. He brings an immense amount of experience to this debate and the discussion. I thank the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, for talking so powerfully about our fundamental values of freedom, the right to protest and the right to self-expression.

What unites us all is a belief in the importance of standing with Hongkongers, both at home and abroad, and that this country continues to offer Hongkongers a route out of oppression, to ensure that Hongkongers living in the UK feel secure and have an opportunity to build a better life here. I know that the Minister is personally committed to those aims, as are the Government. I am sure that those in the Hong Kong community following today’s debate, including constituents of mine in Altrincham and Sale West, will be really encouraged by the contributions and the positive response of the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered visas, security and access to services for Hong Kongers living in the UK.

14:54

Sitting suspended.

Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief

Thursday 17th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rupa Huq in the Chair]

15:00

[Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief.

I rise today to address a pressing issue affecting not only my constituents in Gordon and Buchan but rural communities and family-run businesses across the entirety of the United Kingdom. As we approach the autumn Budget, there is growing anxiety, yet to be put to bed, among farmers and family business owners about the potential changes to agricultural and business property reliefs. APR and BPR play a crucial role in securing the longevity of farming and family businesses. Without inheritance tax reliefs, the value of an individual’s business assets will be chargeable at a full 40%. The rate of inheritance tax in the UK kicks in at a relatively low value in relation to the value of farming assets, even for a small farm, particularly when compared with that of other countries. There is speculation in the media, coupled with Government silence, on the future of these reliefs, which is causing profound problems.

In a meeting with the Country Land and Business Association just yesterday, I heard how some of their members are already taking rash and rushed decisions because of this matter, which will impact their businesses, tax position and operations for years to come. Its members—our constituents—fear the worst in terms of changes to APR and BPR in the Budget and the profound impact that may have on their businesses, which, in many cases, provide employment for their families and wider communities, and have done so for generations.

APR and BPR are not, as some would have us believe, just tax loopholes for the wealthy. Viewing those reliefs as fair game in a Budget shows a complete lack of understanding of their importance and function. APR and BPR are lifelines for hard-working family farms and entrepreneurs, who form the backbone of our rural communities and local economies the length of the country. These are same businesses that we MPs are always too delighted to be seen to visit and champion as pillars of our communities and for their hard-working, entrepreneurial spirit; it is now time that we put those words into actions. Many of these businesses would not survive a succession event without APR or BPR—it is that simple. There is a reason why the reliefs have been in place for almost 50 years, which is that they work and are needed. Without them, farming and family businesses would change, and the UK’s rural business landscape would be unrecognisable.

Agricultural businesses are vital for not only economic activity but food production and security, land stewardship and environmental management. As farmers face ever-tighter margins from increased environmental obligations, spiking input costs and global market pressures, there is already considerable strain on farming profitability. It is important to understand that although farms have high asset values, they are often cash poor. In 2022-23, across all types of farms, 17% were failing to make a profit and 59% were taking home less than £50,000. Even where a profit is made, it is usually directly reinvested back into the farm—the business—in order to increase efficiency, develop or adapt. Cash does not simply sit idly; it is usually invested into assets needed to grow the farm and allow it to function, be it via land, buildings or kit.

APR is also vital for ensuring that farms can be passed to the next generation without a crippling inheritance tax bill. The continuity of family farms is necessary for the maintenance of our cultural heritage and expertise and, crucially, generational stewardship of our countryside and responsibility for food production. Without APR, many families would be forced to sell their land or buildings or even split up the farm in order to pay inheritance tax bills, which, even for the most modest of farms, could be hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not in the millions. That would mean selling the very assets and losing the scale needed to operate and produce food, fundamentally undermining the viability of those businesses.

It is important to appreciate that farms do not operate in isolation; they typically engage with multiple businesses in close proximity to their holdings. In my recent meeting with the National Farmers Union Scotland, I was told about a farm in north-east Scotland that engages with no fewer than 92 separate businesses within a radius of just a few miles; those businesses all benefit from that one farm. The closure of a single farm will have a ripple effect throughout any local economy.

The average age of a farmer in the UK is 59, and 35% of farmers are aged over 65. We all know that it is common to see farmers still managing their holdings well into their seventh or eighth decades, but that means that, on family farms, a succession event—planned or otherwise—can hit very suddenly. Without the reliefs, we risk losing a generation of farmers, threatening the future of British agriculture. Many family businesses will simply cease to exist if they are removed. The impact will extend not just to landowners, but far beyond, to tenancies and the wider rural economy.

In a recent poll by the CLA of over 500 landowners and farmers, 86% said they were likely to have to sell some or all of their land upon a death if inheritance tax reliefs were scrapped, and 90% said that the UK’s food security would be damaged in the long run. I find that really hard to disagree with. The potential loss of productive agricultural land and farmland has serious implications for our national food security, and I remind the Minister of the line in the Labour manifesto, that

“food security is national security.”

Let us also consider the alternative: if large areas of land were sold to cover an IHT bill, who would be likely to buy that land? Would it be another farmer, who would also have to manage their own capital in light of their own family’s IHT bill down the line, or a large corporate company, where boardrooms and bottom lines dictate the approach to environmental management, room for nature and food production? I do not think that that is the ownership and business structure of rural Britain that this Government, or indeed any of us, are striving for.

We must also consider the impact on tenants as well as landowning farmers. Any changes to APR that make it less appealing for a tenancy to be created will have a detrimental impact on tenants, the tenancy sector and the next generation of farmers.

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

I might have this wrong, but I understand that the Tenant Farmers Association has suggested that there could be scope for reforming these taxes in a way that is of benefit to long-term tenancies. What is the hon. Member’s view on whether such reforms would be worthwhile?

[Harriet Cross]

I would obviously I have to see what the TFA suggested, but I think that we need to look at the agricultural sector as a whole. If land is being taken out of farming for any purpose, it is not going to be available for tenants, so if landowners are feeling compelled to sell their land because they have to cover an IHT bill, it does not matter what happens with reforms down the line; that land will not be available for tenants to access. I fully support the tenanted sector—it is a vital part of our farming sector—but, on its own, it will not be enough to keep land in production.

BPR is important for every family business the length and breadth of the country, and therefore in all of our constituencies. Family-owned businesses are the beating heart of the British economy. Across the UK, there are approximately 5.3 million family businesses, employing over 14 million people and contributing £225 billion per annum to the Treasury. BPR is especially vital for small family businesses—including many in my constituency of Gordon and Buchan—which form the backbone of our local economies, providing much needed local employment, stability and resilience in the face of economic and environmental challenges.

Businesses that rely on BPR to survive a succession event are often significant local employers, and their failure would have a knock-on effect on local services and on business rates, which are vital for local authorities. Other models of business ownership, such as plcs and those backed by private equity, do not face a tax charge on the change of ownership, so BPR is a vital mechanism to ensure that family businesses—85,000 of which are passed to the next generation each year—are at least on a level playing field.

About 77% of family small and medium-sized enterprises are first-generation businesses. Without BPR, these family firms would lose the opportunity to grow and transition into successful next-generation businesses. If, following a succession event, businesses effectively have to take a 40% hit on their finances or asset base to cover an IHT bill, what chance is there for them to secure longevity and flourish in the future? As we approach the Budget, I hope the Minister and his Government will take on board that APR and BPR are vital to the long-term planning and investment of rural areas and family businesses. It is not an overstatement to say that the future of rural communities and our food security depend on it.

In particular, the Government should focus on four things: providing clarity and reassurance on their intentions regarding APR and BPR; committing to maintaining those reliefs in their current form for at least the duration of this Parliament; commissioning an independent review on the wider economic and social impact of those reliefs beyond just the direct cost to the Treasury; and engaging meaningfully with rural communities, farmers and family business owners before pursuing any future changes.

APR and BPR are not mere tax reliefs; they are the foundation of a thriving, sustainable and entrepreneurial United Kingdom. They support our farmers and family businesses, pillars of our communities that have been there for generations. They ensure that businesses can continue to operate following a succession event and allow for the long-term planning necessary for farms and family businesses to develop and thrive. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions.

15:12

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this debate. We have already spoken briefly in an all-party parliamentary group meeting about the similarities between our constituencies. She and I both know the importance of a thriving agricultural sector, the jobs it provides, and the almost undefinable contribution it makes to the character of the constituency and to a community.

I am concerned because farmers in my constituency have told me that they have been dealing with the chaos of the economy for the last 14 years. They have been dealing with crashing consumer confidence and an international trading situation in this country that simply is not conducive to the long-term success of the agricultural sector. For example, the Australia and New Zealand trade deal was a betrayal of the sheep farmers in my constituency in particular and has threatened their long-term business prospects. I hope that the Minister not only responds to the points made in this debate but talks about how we can make sure that the economy is stable, secure and on firm foundations, and that we never again see our farmers sold down the river as they once were.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Canadian deal has not been signed in the last 18 months in order to take account of the agricultural sector’s concerns in particular? The pressing, immediate concern for which the Minister must provide a resolution today is how this Government are disposed towards agricultural property relief and business property relief. That is their concern now. The hon. Gentleman is making a political point—whatever happened previously, we have to focus on his Government’s responsibility in the coming two weeks.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I have just been reminded by the Clerk that it is very unusual for a shadow Cabinet member to speak in a Westminster Hall debate as a Back Bencher. I will allow Joe Morris to respond, but apparently that is not the done thing.

[John Glen]

I sought advice on the matter from our Chief Whip prior to coming here, Dr Huq.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

It is not the Opposition Chief Whip’s decision; it lies with the Chairman of Ways and Means. Our rule book says that it is highly unusual. I will allow Joe Morris to respond, but hopefully there will not be a back and forth between the shadow Cabinet and Back Benchers.

[Joe Morris]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his highly unusual intervention. I will make a brief university point and say that it is highly unusual to have a Mansfield College MP intervene on a Mansfield College MP; it is probably the first time that has happened in this Parliament.

[John Glen]

It certainly is.

[Joe Morris]

I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I am glad that the last Government learned some of the lessons of the Australia trade deal and implemented them. It is important that we get an answer on APR and BPR. I am making a slightly political point, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will humour me for it, but it is important that we maintain that international trade is an ongoing piece and the agricultural sector does not exist in isolation. None of these reliefs exist in isolation. Farming, more than anything, is an industry with concerns that sit between the Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Business and Trade. More than almost any other industry, it is reliant on good cross-party and cross-departmental working, and we need to ensure that the Government do that. I hope that we do not consider these things just in isolation but overall and together, and we must ensure that the Government are working towards securing them.

One of the main concerns that I picked up from my constituency is the inability of consumers to distinguish between British and foreign produce when it is badged up the wrong way. I hope the Treasury will listen to representations on how we can combat that kind of false advertising when foreign produce is repackaged as UK produce. How we keep the family farm going, and how we ensure that small farms are able to continue to produce in the Tyne valley, is deeply concerning to me. I have spoken to a lot of local farmers about land loss and about large corporations buying up prime agricultural land and using it to—I think it is fair to say—greenwash. That is genuinely a national issue that requires cross-party cohesion and cross-party solutions. My own hackneyed political point scoring is not going to help in that, but in the long term and in this Parliament, I would always welcome working to address that. However, I urge the Minister to remember that farms are businesses and they need long-term consumer confidence. They need an overall business climate that rewards investment and entrepreneurialism, but not one that is not built on sand. They need one that is built on secure, stable foundations and that is open to serious cross-party working.

When we look at how we get the rural economy growing, it is really important that both land-owning farms and tenant farms in particular can continue to employ people and that there is money going out of those farms into the local economy. I have spoken to my constituents: they have had to take certain crops out of production to grow those that need less manpower. They would have employed people to work those fields or work that livestock, but they have been forced to change by often badly designed initiatives from DEFRA, and we need to work cross-party to ensure that those initiatives are better designed in future. They have been forced into those measures that, over the course of many years, slowly bring their workforce down and lead to less money coming into the local economy. In his response, I hope the Minister can ensure that the Treasury hears the pleas of rural communities. This issue is genuinely a concern across parties, and my constituents are very concerned about the ongoing removal of prime agricultural land from food production.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to make a speech. We will then calculate whether we need a time limit.

15:17

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing a very timely debate. She has provided us with what is definitely my favourite euphemism, the “succession event”, and I think we know what that means in most cases.

This is a timely debate because we have had a lot of speculation in the media in recent weeks about the possibility of changes coming in the Budget very soon. There is very little that is certain in politics these days, but I am as near certain as anybody can be that, when the Minister comes to reply, he will say that he is not going to tell us anything about the Budget. I understand the reasons for that, which are essentially sound, long-standing and respected by all, but it illustrates the inadequacy of this as a way of effecting meaningful change. Without the ability to have a proper debate involving the Treasury, change will inevitably come in a haphazard and chaotic way, and it will bring with it many unintended consequences that will have an effect on not just farmers but the wider rural community. I should have said right at the start that I have my own interests in agriculture, which are in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and I remind the House of those.

There may be a case for reform, but this really is not the way to go about it. The hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan was right to say that farming is a capital-rich and revenue-poor industry. Of course, any changes in farming will have consequences that spread beyond agricultural businesses. What affects farmers will affect vets, agricultural merchants, local shops and post offices in some of the most economically fragile communities to be found anywhere in the country. My concern has long been—it is not exclusive to this Government—that the Treasury does not quite understand the way the rural economy works. It is a cliché, but true, to say that farming underpins just about everything in rural communities and the rural economy, whether environmentally—through the way in which land is managed, which has consequences for nature—or financially.

The Tenant Farmers Association provided a briefing for this debate, which said that it is already seeing consequences among its members:

“We are already seeing, first hand, concerns about how Inheritance Tax charges change the way that traditional estates have thought about the management of their agricultural land, and that is before there is any change to the Inheritance Tax regime. Rural estates with significant residential and mineral interests will want to ensure that they have sufficient business activity elsewhere on their estates to be able to qualify for BPR from Inheritance Tax across the whole of their estates. If APR was abolished this will make things hugely much more difficult for farm tenants.”

That important point gets right to the heart of the matter. That is why I am pleased that the hon. Lady, in framing this debate, covered APR and BPR, which work in an interlinked way. It also shows the responsibility we in politics have when we set hares running.

North of the border, for the last few years we have had an active and often welcome debate about land reform, but one of the consequences of that debate is that many agricultural land owners, instead of moving out and putting in tenants, have moved into grass lets. A lot of the larger landowners’ estates, in particular, have replaced the secure agricultural tenancies for which they had been known for generations with a much less secure system of tenure.

As the TFA says, there might be a case for reform. It suggests ways to reward longer tenancies of 10-plus years and more secure tenancies. We have to have that debate, but we cannot effect that in a meaningful way that looks at agricultural spending in the round once the decision has been announced in a Budget. There are many other influences at play. For example, in recent years we have had the reform of agricultural support payments in England and Wales, and that is now coming through in Scotland.

For decades, farmers have been told that they have to diversify—diversify, diversify, diversify—so they have renovated farm cottages and turned them into furnished holiday lets, and now they are being told that they are responsible for the housing crisis in the country and are being hit with furnished holiday let reform, which this Government appear to have inherited from the previous one.

Inheritance tax can be avoided by intra vires transfers, but the way they work can often be arbitrary. They can also have some difficult personal consequences when it comes to the transfer from one generation to the other, as the family interaction can be difficult.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan. I hope that when the Chancellor delivers the Budget next week, if this issue is under the Treasury’s active consideration, we will see the Government’s direction of travel and the overall picture that they want to achieve, rather than just one quick hit, because that could have serious consequences for family farms and rural communities across the country.

15:24

[Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this debate on agricultural property relief and business property relief. Like her, I represent a constituency with a large rural community of many farms and agricultural businesses, so I am acutely aware of just how important the relief is for the long-term viability of farming and the wider implications for UK food security.

There is already a recruitment crisis in the sector, which is heavily reliant on families to work in farming into the future. While I would, of course, encourage young people to look into agricultural and land-based courses such as the ones offered at the excellent Reaseheath College in my constituency, it is fair to say that farming is often in the blood, with the skills and knowledge passed down from generation to generation. If the physical means to farm, the land and the property, are not passed down to the next generation, then we risk losing the people, knowledge and skills that we desperately need to keep the sector viable.

I have spoken to farmers, who are clear that changes to agricultural property relief would mean that land would have to be sold to cover the cost of subsequent tax bills. I know that that is the case across the country. According to a large CLA poll, 86% of farmers said that all or part of their land would need to be sold when they passed away, if agricultural property relief was removed. Farmers have already been through a challenging time. Rising costs for energy and fertiliser, inflation, and adverse weather are just some of the issues that farmers have faced in recent years. The Government need to stand by farmers and support them, not restrict and punish them as the removal of APR would do.

Across the House, we rightly say that food security is national security. Farmers need land to produce food. If the Government remove protections that are in place to exempt farm land from inheritance tax, it will be yet another step to putting our food security at greater risk. This is a very real problem that is pertinent to all of us, whether we are farmers or not, because all of us rely on food that is grown to feed our nation. Many farmers across Chester South and Eddisbury provide jobs directly and indirectly—for instance, through food production or hospitality—that rely on local produce. Farmers are also essential for land management and maintaining our environment.

This policy threatens the future of the countryside. I remind the Minister that he stood on a manifesto that committed to not raising taxes on working people. I would respectfully suggest that any change in the current rules and rates of agricultural property relief would be contradictory to that promise. Farmers are working people. They work incredibly hard, often without the recognition they deserve, and they must be supported, not penalised.

15:27

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure, as always, Dr Huq, to serve under your chairship. It has probably been more than once this week but, none the less, it is lovely to see you in your place. I thank the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for setting the scene so well and giving us all an opportunity to make a contribution on an important issue. It is an honour to speak on a subject that is not just a matter of fiscal policy, but is of vital importance to the very backbone of the United Kingdom. I declare an interest as a farmer, landowner and member of the Ulster Farmers Union for some 40 years. I joined the Ulster Farmers Union not because it was in Northern Ireland, but because the insurance premiums were very cheap. They are maybe not quite as cheap now, but then no insurance is as cheap now as it is used to be, and that is a fact.

I can attest to the importance of agricultural property relief in ensuring the sustainability and longevity of farming enterprises across our great nation. In my constituency of Strangford, farming is not just an industry, but much more—it is a way of life. It is about generations of families working the land, providing food, maintaining the landscape and contributing to the rural economy. More than that, it is about stewardship, which the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan referred to in her introduction. It is really important that we focus on that. Farmers are custodians of the countryside, caring for the environment while ensuring food production to feed the nation. That means everyone; not just the farmers, but everyone who lives in this great nation. Agricultural property relief plays a critical role in maintaining that balance, allowing farming families to pass on their land and business without crippling tax burdens.

Agricultural property relief is one of the key supports for farming families across the United Kingdom, and in Strangford it is essential. In Northern Ireland, agriculture is responsible for some £501 million in income, as of 2021—a substantial 8.3% increase from 2020. It is no exaggeration to say that agriculture is at the heart of our economy, and everyone has said it. Agriculture is critical to everyone. Not a person who has spoken so far has not said that about our rural community.

My constituency of Strangford is home to a vibrant agrifood sector that employs thousands of people through major employers such as Willowbrook Foods, Lakeland Dairies and Mash Direct. Those companies are household names. They are family businesses that started as farms and then diversified—something that the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to. They have ensured the sustainability of our rural community. Without APR, those family-run enterprises could be forced to sell land and assets just to meet inheritance tax liabilities, potentially dismantling businesses that have been built up over generations. This issue is critical to the future of my constituency’s farming community, and to those businesses.

Agriculture is not just a business; it is the fabric of rural life. We often talk about food security, environmental stewardship and rural economies, and yet without the right fiscal support, those pillars of our country are put at risk. That is why this debate is so important. APR helps farmers to plan for the future, ensuring that the next generation can take over the family farm without being forced into financial hardship. It allows them to focus on what they do best: producing high-quality food, maintaining biodiversity and contributing significantly to local economies.

We have a rich agricultural tradition. Our dairy farmers, sheep farmers, pig farmers and vegetable growers are among the best in the world and take immense pride in their work. Lakeland Dairies, which employs more than 250 people in my constituency, and Mash Direct, which employs more than 230, have been the cornerstones of our agrifood economy.

Let us not forget the Comber early, a potato with protected geographical indication status, which means it is recognised across Europe for its unique quality. It is grown right there in the fields of Strangford. Those enterprises are not just businesses; they are a way of life. It is about not just tradition, but innovation. Innovation is part of what farmers do. They are not just the boys who plough the fields and scatter the seed—that is almost like the hymn “We plough the fields and scatter”.

Let us take Mash Direct, for example. A family-run business that began in a kitchen 20 years ago now supplies some of the largest retailers in the United Kingdom, including Asda and Spar. The business is forward-thinking. It has installed solar panels and invested in sustainable practices, all while providing hearty, healthy food at affordable prices. Lakeland Dairies, meanwhile, exports its milk products across the world and contributes to the economy. These are family businesses that started off in a very small way and have grown and created jobs. They are success stories, and we must ensure that the tax system supports their continued growth and does not hamper them.

This is why I am calling on the Government to ensure that agricultural property relief remains intact and that it is not reduced or removed as part of any future tax policy. We must give farmers the confidence to invest in their businesses, to innovate and to continue producing high quality food for our nation. The very last thing we need is for farms to be sold off piecemeal because families cannot afford the tax burden. Let us be clear. APR is not a loophole for the wealthy; it is a lifeline for farming families who are working hard day in and day out to maintain their land and their livelihoods.

In Strangford, where agriculture is not just a part of our economy but a part of our identity—it is who we are—support is vital. As we look to the future of UK farming post Brexit, with new trade deals, changing subsidy regimes and heightened environmental targets, we must ensure that the fiscal framework surrounding agriculture is robust and supportive. APR is a crucial part of that framework, allowing farmers to pass on their businesses, invest in new technologies and ensure that rural communities remain vibrant and sustainable.

Farmers in Strangford and across the United Kingdom are already taking steps to reduce emissions, embrace low-emission technology and promote biodiversity. However, those efforts cannot come at the cost of financial viability. Many of the improvements needed to reduce emissions, such as upgrading farm infrastructure, require significant investment, as the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan said. She set the scene very clearly. The money that is made must go back into the farms so that they can move forward.

APR helps to ensure that farmers have the financial security to make those investments. Without it, we risk failing not only our farming communities but our environmental goals. I say this to the Minister kindly—he knows that I do not criticise or give people a hard time, but I do make a point. The Secretary of State for the Environment has made it clear that Labour is committed to achieving environmental goals. The farmers whom I and others here represent are also committed to achieving those goals, but that can only happen if the money comes through for that purpose.

I want to mention the need for better protection of farmland from schemes such as solar farms and pylons, which can remove valuable agricultural land from production. While we must embrace renewable energy, we must also ensure that food production remains central to our land-use framework. There has to be a balance, as Members of both the previous and the current Government will understand. We need to strike the right balance between energy production and food security. Farmers should not be forced to choose between their livelihoods and environmental progress. Both things can, and must, go hand in hand.

I have spoken fairly quickly, and I think I have got more words in than anyone has ever done. Farming is at the heart of our nation, and agricultural property relief is at the heart of farming. Without APR, many of our farming families—those in Strangford and across this great nation—would face insurmountable challenges. The loss of that vital relief would be a blow not just to rural communities, but to our food security, economy and environment. Each of those is critical, so let us continue to back our farmers, protect our rural communities and safeguard our food security by maintaining agricultural property relief. I urge the Government to make that commitment and recognise that the future of farming in the United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland depends on it.

15:36

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I join in the tributes to my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) for securing this important debate. Like many Members, I am motivated to engage in it because I represent a rural constituency that is made up of many small and large farm holdings.

Without making this sound like my maiden speech, Suffolk is a beautiful rural constituency with a stunning landscape. It is known for its contribution to our food system, and it is home to many market towns where family-owned butchers, bakers and grocers source their produce from local farms. Even breweries do so. Adnams Southwold is in the next-door constituency, but it sources all the ingredients for its famous beers and other products from farms in the local area. One in seven jobs in Suffolk have some relationship to the food production industry. One only has to go to the Suffolk Show to see the importance of farms, farming and agriculture to our local economy. As a result, we have to take seriously the livelihood and financial sustainability of our farms.

It is worth remembering that farms are, as many Members have said, small businesses with tight margins and high capital costs. One way we could greatly threaten the long-term financial sustainability of farms, which are so integral to our economy and community, is to threaten the owners with a tax if they pass the family farm down to the next generation.

Let me explain why that is a bad idea. First, as with the taxation of many forms of capital, liquidity is being demanded from a resource that is fundamentally illiquid. As we have heard, the Government will fundamentally force many farms to sell off parcels of land, and when farm owners realise that it is hard to sell off small parcels of land, they will be forced to sell their whole holding. Don’t believe me? Eighty-six per cent. of respondents to a poll of farmers conducted by the Country Land and Business Association said that they would have to sell some or all of their land if they were faced with a new IHT obligation.

Secondly, those who can shoulder the cost of a new tax on their farm and business will simply have to reallocate a lot of their capital away from more productive sources of investment, such as cattle, machinery and labour. That has grossly negative economic and social consequences. My next-door neighbour is a relatively well-heeled farmer who also uses his land to provide a wedding venue and rental properties—that is something we have heard about. If we place farmers under more financial stress, they will simply have to close down those businesses. Let us not forget that many of those businesses provide really important jobs and incomes and, fundamentally, pay tax in our economy. We are taxing one half of the equation only to take away from the other.

Thirdly, the proposal will yield an irrelevant amount of money in the long run. We have all read the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies that says that agricultural relief costs the Exchequer £400 million a year. To put it bluntly, I know that many people in the Treasury and Labour Members see landowners as rich rent seekers who invest in property to avoid IHT. But let us look at the contribution that people such as James Dyson have made to our food production industry by incorporating technology and environmental standards into the sector, or at the incredible impact of the Grosvenor group in restoring peatland and moorlands in parts of Cheshire and Lancashire. That will have a hugely positive impact on wildlife numbers and carbon emissions.

If the Treasury genuinely believes that we should tax farmers in the hope that they will release land to housing and property developers—trust me, we are not going to solve the housing crisis by building houses on farmland in Suffolk. It will be solved by investing in units in towns and cities, where young people really want to live and where footfall already exists. Such an argument ignores all the positive impact that many farmers have made, and it completely neglects the thousands of small families who are not rich and who may be forced to sell their farm despite having tended to the land for generations. The imposition of a new tax on inherited land will have a sad impact on family-owned farms, of which there are too many in my constituency to name. Many have spoken in recent years of the increasing difficulty of running their farms in the current economic climate. They have to negotiate a labyrinth of new environmental regulations, a new post-Brexit payment system, an energy crisis that has pushed their costs through the roof, higher interest rates and increasing competition from abroad.

To remove agricultural and business relief from these small family-owned farms could push many over the edge. What a loss that would be to our economy, to our communities and to the many families who have owned, farmed and maintained their land for generations, and who will continue to do so for generations to come.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I call the first Front-Bench spokesperson: Will Forster for the Liberal Democrats.

15:42

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Wanting to leave your children something is a natural part of being a parent. Right now, inheritance tax is quite unfair. Families face a tax rate that is very high by international standards. Tax-free allowances have been frozen for some time, while house prices and inflation have gone up significantly. It is understandable that people I have met on the doorstep in Woking over the years have said that they are worried about their family being caught by that tax, even though they are by no means wealthy. Meanwhile, economists and policy experts have expressed concerns about the ways in which inheritance tax reliefs can be used. The aim of business property relief is to make sure that family businesses can pass from one generation to the next. I hope everyone here would agree that that is a worthwhile aim.

Woking is a town teeming with family businesses. We all have family businesses in our constituencies that are near and dear to our constituents and that enrich our areas not only economically but culturally, making them unique. We need to ensure that those family businesses are genuinely protected by new rules, so that they can continue from one generation to the next, and we need to ensure that they are genuinely sustainable so that the stewardship of the history and heritage of our local areas is maintained.

Experts point out that certain provisions within business property relief are not particularly well targeted at local family businesses or small businesses, which are usually the ones in most need of support. For example, it has been noted that 100% relief applies in the same degree to businesses of all sizes, from large corporations worth several billion to micro and small family shops or farms. There are also questions about accountancy practices that can give certain financial portfolios the same treatment as a local family-owned shop, pub or manufacturing business. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on these issues and on how the Government envisage supporting cherished family-owned companies that champion the heritage and local economy in my constituency and elsewhere.

It is equally important that family-owned farming businesses, which have been the focus of most contributions to this debate, be preserved and protected. Farming is vital to our rural communities, providing the foundation for our whole economy and our food security. We need to have the raw materials and to guarantee safety; s we live in a more dangerous world, we need to be able to feed ourselves. I would like to hear the Minister’s views on how we can continue to support agricultural businesses, ensuring that they continue to operate as family businesses, creating jobs and adding value to their area. I also urge him to recognise the contribution of our farmers practically by accelerating the roll-out of the new environmental land management scheme, properly funding it with an extra £1 billion a year to support profitable, sustainable and nature-friendly farming.

After years of Conservative chaos and neglect, there is no doubt that our NHS and social care, our schools, our local authorities and our other public services desperately need more investment, so I can understand why the Government may look at different options for raising revenue. Our GPs are overstretched, our hospitals are overcrowded and our school buildings are crumbling, but at the same time families and pensioners are struggling with the rising cost of living.

The Conservatives put up their taxes by freezing tax thresholds for years. It would be wrong to ask residents to pay again to clear up the Conservative mess. The Liberal Democrats would therefore focus tax changes on making the system fairer, such as by reversing the Conservative party’s tax cuts for big banks and imposing a proper windfall tax on the super-profits of oil and gas companies. Responsible public finances are essential to the stability, certainty and confidence that drive economic growth, and to getting mortgage rates under control.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

For His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I call Nigel Huddleston.

15:47

[Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this important debate. I thank all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions: I was particularly entertained to hear everybody’s friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) say that he does not give anybody a hard time. I warn the Minister that he can expect persistent, relentless and vigorous but polite nudging; it may not be defined as a hard time, but it certainly sometimes feels like that. It is very polite, I have to say.

A few other points were raised today, but I will not delve into all the issues. Under different circumstances, I would be happy to have a debate with the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) about international trade. Having negotiated some of the trade deals, I can reassure him that the NFU and others had a very strong voice and that we listened to them very carefully. Their opinions, views and points were very often made. We tried to put safeguards in place; that has not always been acknowledged, but that is a debate for another day. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster), raised a bunch of other issues—again, a debate for another day.

Just two weeks before the Government deliver the Budget, I am aware that the Minister will be unwilling—and, to be fair, unable—to comment in detail on the issues that have been raised today. Nevertheless, I think it important that he and the Treasury team hear and reflect on the concerns and fears that Members have expressed on behalf of their constituents and other stakeholders who could be considerably affected by any changes to inheritance tax relief and particularly to business property relief and agricultural property relief.

My party supports wealth creation, which is important and which helps to pay for our public services, but we also understand the importance of ensuring that wealthy individuals make a fair contribution and pay tax appropriately. Earlier this year, the Minister and I had a debate about the broader issues of inheritance tax in which we recognised that we do not have a wealth tax in this country, but that there are taxes on wealth. Inheritance tax is an important such tax: it brought in something like £7.6 billion last year.

We have a progressive tax system. The top 1% of income taxpayers pay 28% of all income tax, so they contribute a huge amount. The vast majority of estates do not pay inheritance tax: only about 5% do so, because there are so many exemptions and reliefs. It is important to recognise those reliefs as legitimate. There is abuse in the tax system—there are loopholes that need closing, and HM Revenue and Customs, the Treasury and others spend a lot of time closing them—but let us not forget that the reliefs are there for a reason. Business property relief and agricultural property relief are perfectly legitimate reliefs. Without them, many businesses, including farms, would cease to exist or would be broken up on the passing of their owner. The reliefs form a critical part of overall business planning and especially of succession planning.

Many businesses, particularly small businesses, have expressed anxiety about the prospect of changes to or the abolition of business property relief. Currently, business relief is applied at either 50% or 100% on qualifying businesses when working out how much inheritance tax should be paid. That allows businesses and business assets or shares to be passed on to the next generation without the need to jeopardise the viability or even existence of vital businesses. Without that relief, many more family-owned businesses would have to be sold or broken up to pay a big inheritance tax bill. Prior to the election, many businesses and business bodies, including the Federation of Small Businesses, believed that they had heard and received commitments and assurances on inheritance tax and BPR from the Labour party. Many small businesses in my constituency and across the country seek the reiteration of those assurances.

BPR also plays an important part in attracting and retaining certain investments, for example in the alternative investment market. According to some analysts, the removal of BPR from the alternative investment market could result in a loss of between £14 billion and £21 billion in value to UK shareholders and would permanently damage the AIM. Given the importance of inheritance tax relief to the AIM, they are also looking for the Government to confirm its continuation. Uncertainty and speculation around its continuation may already be jeopardising investment.

Many hon. Members’ speeches have focused on agricultural property relief, because it is vital to the continuation of our rural way of life and our countryside. The NFU, the Country Land and Business Association and others are concerned about the renewed uncertainty and the impact on farming, including on tenant farmers. Some fear that APR may be removed and that some form of BPR may be kept, but even that could deter landowners from letting their land to tenants; the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) spoke about some of the further considerations and concerns for tenant farmers in particular.

As many colleagues have said, many farms would simply not survive the imposition of inheritance tax. Families who have farmed the land for generations could be forced to give up their businesses, their farms and their homes, which could jeopardise the sustainability of the rural economy, as well as undermining efforts towards greater self-sufficiency in food production and compromising environmental goals broadly agreed by both the former Government and the current Government.

The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirmed last year, when he was the shadow Secretary of State, that the Labour party had no plans to change inheritance tax, including APR, if Labour won the election. Sadly, speculation has since arisen, and I do not believe that further assurances have been given by the Secretary of State or the Treasury. If the Minister can provide any certainty or even an indication to provide additional confidence, I and many of my constituents will welcome it, as will many other hon. Members’ constituents, many farmers, many investors and many business owners across the country.

Labour did not mention APR or BPR in its manifesto, nor did it make statements about them during the election campaign, but it clearly stated that it would not increase taxes on working people. As we have heard today, farmers and family business owners are very clearly working people; my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) made that point very well.

Given all the comments we have heard from the Labour party, I hope the Minister agrees that it is perfectly reasonable to assume that there are no plans, and should be no plans, to change the inheritance tax relief system, especially because those reliefs play such an important part in investment decisions and business planning. I therefore look forward to the Minister’s speech providing at least some of the reassurances that we seek today.

15:55

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Dr Huq. Let me join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing the debate. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions —including the advice from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), on what to expect in my new role from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

As many Members have rightly highlighted, there has been a great deal of speculation in recent weeks about potential changes to taxation in the Budget, including to the reliefs that we are debating today. Hon Members will understand—indeed, many of them acknowledged in their speeches that they understand—that I cannot add to that speculation. The Budget is on 30 October, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out any changes to the tax system then, in the normal way. However, ahead of that, I welcome this opportunity to hear Members’ views on this matter.

Let me start by briefly setting out the context for this Budget. Following the spending audit in July, the Chancellor has been clear that difficult decisions lie ahead on spending, welfare and taxation to address the £22 billion black hole that we inherited from the previous Government. Decisions on how to address that will be taken at the Budget in the round. It is crucial that we get the public finances back on a firm footing so that we can restore economic stability. On those foundations, we will boost investment, increase growth across the UK and improve public services. That is the prize ahead and how we will make people across Britain better off.

Let me turn to how inheritance tax operates in the UK tax system. Inheritance tax, as other Members have said, is a wealth transfer tax and applies to the estate of the deceased. Transfers made in the seven years before death are also taken into account. The estates of all individuals benefit from a £325,000 nil-rate band. The residence nil-rate band is a further £175,000 and is available to those passing on a qualifying residence on death to their direct descendants, such as children or grandchildren. That means that, altogether, qualifying estates can pass on up to £500,000. Furthermore, the qualifying estate of a surviving spouse or civil partner can pass on up to £1 million without an inheritance tax liability, because any unused nil-rate band or residence nil-rate band is transferable to the surviving spouse or civil partner.

Above those thresholds, the headline rate of inheritance tax is 40%, but it is important to remember that that rate is charged only on the part of the estate that is above the threshold, and after the application of reliefs. That is obviously the subject of today’s debate, so let me turn first to business property relief. That relief is a long-standing part of the inheritance tax system. It is designed to ensure that businesses need not be broken up or sold on the death of an owner in order to pay an inheritance tax liability. That reflects concerns that there may not always be enough liquid assets in the business to pay the tax. Subject to certain qualifying conditions, the relief generally applies to unquoted shares and interests in a business. It also applies to shares designated as “not listed” on a “recognised stock exchange”, such as shares that are quoted on AIM, as mentioned by the shadow Minister. The rate of business property relief is usually 100%, but can be 50% in some circumstances. Until March 1992, the maximum rate of the relief was 50% and there was a lower rate of 30% alongside that. Hon. Members may be interested to know that the cost of the relief has risen from £685 million in 2019-20 to a forecast £1.3 billion in 2023-24.

Agricultural property relief is also a long-standing part of the system. It has a similar purpose to business property relief, although the main benefit is to ensure that relief is available when land is let to tenant farmers, as we heard from various hon. Members today. This is largely because owner-occupiers of agricultural land also qualify for business property relief. Again, the rate of agricultural property relief is usually 100%, but can be 50% in some circumstances, and as with business property relief, lower rates existed before 1992. The cost of this relief has risen from £320 million in 2019-20 to a forecast £365 million in 2023-24.

There are many different views on these reliefs. Stakeholders, including Family Business UK and the Country Land and Business Association, have argued strongly against any prospect of the reliefs being abolished. Other organisations are in favour of changes to the reliefs, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies suggesting that a cap on such reliefs could allow those passing on small farms or businesses to be taken out of inheritance tax, while preventing agricultural and business investments from being used to avoid it. The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), whom I thank for his contribution, said that there may be a case for certain reforms to agricultural property relief. Of course, the previous Government had views on these reliefs. I understand from reports in the Telegraph that the previous Government considered abolishing these reliefs as part of reforms to the system.

I welcome the opportunity today to hear from Members on their views, particularly on agricultural property relief, but also on issues relating to farmers and their constituents more widely. The hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) rightly highlighted the importance of food security for this Government and its importance in our policy making. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—in nudging me gently, to quote the shadow Minister—spoke eloquently about the importance of farming in his constituency and in the economy of Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) spoke of some of the wider challenges facing the farming community in recent years, not least energy bills. My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) is proving to be a very effective constituency MP already, raising a number of important issues on behalf of those he represents, as well as drawing attention to the wider significance of having economic stability and security for farmers and everyone in his constituency.

[Mr Carmichael]

The Minister reminds us—it is our fault for doing this—that we have focused very much on the family farm as the unit of concern, because that is what concerns most of our constituents. However, a lot of agricultural land is, in fact, owned by bodies such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, of which I am a member. The RSPB is never going to have a succession event, to join the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) in using that expression. The consequence of abolition could be that two farms right next door to each other—one owned by a charity or an institution of that sort, and the other owned by a family—would be left having to farm in very different economic circumstances. Is that really fair?

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point, although he presupposes he knows what will happen to agricultural property relief, which, as I set out earlier, I cannot comment on further. He will have to wait a couple of weeks, perhaps, to have further conversations about what the Government will do in this space. I thank him and all hon. Members for their comments today, because it has been an interesting debate. As we have heard, the issue generates some strong views among many of our constituents and the Members present, who represent them.

I understand that there are many different views on what the Government should do, and the debate has allowed me to hear them. As always, the Government welcome all opinions and keep all taxes under review. However, I return to my earlier point: the Chancellor will, of course, announce changes to the tax system at the Budget. There is not long to wait.

16:03

[Harriet Cross]

I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up this debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and the Minister for his closing remarks. A constant theme of today’s debate has been the importance of family businesses and family farms and the vital role they play in our rural economy. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly said and, of course, knows well from his ultra-rural island constituency and communities, the interconnection between farms and other local businesses cannot be denied. Any impact on farming impacts everything else, whether that is marts, vets or suppliers—the knock-on effects are endless.

I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), and echo her words about the Government’s commitment to not increase taxes on working people. If farmers and family businesses are not the pure definition of “working people”, I really do not know what is. Similarly, I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) about the need for cross-party working on this issue; as we all strive to secure a stable rural environment for the economy and employment, that is really important. We should absolutely work on a cross-party basis as we go forward.

Farms and businesses must adapt and innovate to survive across generations. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) correctly identified, the ability of farms and family businesses to do so will be severely hampered by changes to APR and BPR—they must be able to survive across generations, as well as during single generations. Put very simply, people need cash in order to pay a tax bill, and they need a lot of cash to pay a very large tax bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) put it so succinctly, asking many farmers and family businesses to pay a tax bill from an illiquid asset is very difficult: they do not have liquid to play with.

As I said, I thank the Minister for his response. I appreciate that we are less than two weeks out from the Budget, and therefore he is completely unable to confirm or deny rumours, but I hope the concerns that have been raised today have been heard and will be considered in good faith, because they are not just the concerns of people in this Chamber. They are the concerns of our constituents—of farmers and small and family businesses the length and breadth of the country. The Minister pointed out that the cost of BPR has risen to £1.3 billion, but that compares very favourably with the £225 billion of tax income that family businesses contribute to the Exchequer each year.

I will conclude by reiterating my calls for clarity on this matter, maintenance of these reliefs, and meaningful engagement with affected communities on any such matters going forward. Today’s contributions have strengthened the case for action in this area: our rural communities, family businesses, food security and stewardship of our countryside all depend on the certainty that those reliefs provide. I thank all Members for their contributions to today’s important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief.

16:07

Sitting adjourned.