Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Jim Shannon

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

Of course the constituents’ experience that the hon. Lady has described is not acceptable. I do not think anyone would say that it was. Sometimes the public are switched off by this back and forth, because the idea that anyone would be content with the experience that she has described is for the birds. The difference that we draw on—I hope we will have a much more constructive conversation about water than this—is that the investment that was made by the last Government in flooding has had many benefits across the country but, as I acknowledged at the beginning of my speech, there is more to be done. That is why we will support the Bill, but we will be looking to improve it.

I just want to make sure that the Minister got the point that I was making. The amendment that came from the Lords to improve accountability on debt levels and on the financial structuring of water companies is a critical one, and I very much hope that the Government will address this and set out their commitment to keep that amendment that the noble Lords saw fit to put in the Bill.

As I say, in Committee and beyond, the Conservatives will look to deliver effective and constructive amendments to this Bill, but I put down this marker. It is surprising—and, I have to say, disappointing—that the Government have failed to grasp that water companies and sewage are just two elements in managing, maintaining and improving our waterways and water quality. Where are the plans for investment in infrastructure? Where are the plans for nature-based solutions? Where are the plans for the roles of other businesses? As we face the likelihood of increased bills being announced this week, what guarantees and reassurances can the Government give to bill payers? And what plans do the Government have to separate foul water and surface water systems? That is a critical infrastructure question that I hope we will get some answers to in the coming weeks. How will the Government encourage investment, particularly given the depressive effects on growth that this Chancellor and her Budget are having on the economy?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the shadow Minister for her words of wisdom in the Chamber tonight. Does she share my concern over the excessive bonuses that the chief executives of these businesses get? Does she know how much that angers and annoys the ordinary person in the street, who wants to know why somebody is getting a six-figure sum for not doing their job right while they are just trying to make ends meet?

[Victoria Atkins]

Of course we understand that, and it is why we put the powers into the Environment Act 2021 that I am sure the hon. Gentleman and many others voted to support. I hope we can move away from this back and forth and understand the facts as they are and how we can improve on them, because that is what we all want.

We all care about the quality of our water. Let us not pretend or suggest otherwise. I would not suggest that Labour Members do not care about the quality of water, and I do not understand why they think we do not care about the quality of the water that we and our constituents use, drink and swim in—[Interruption.] It is interesting—the left do not like it when we point out that they use motivations rather than the facts. This is why the Conservatives set in train the measures needed to make a meaningful and long-term difference to water quality in this country. That task is not yet finished, and we will support thoughtful, sensible and cost-effective measures to further improve water quality.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House regrets that the Government has undone its promises to farmers, and is seeking to punish them with Inheritance Tax bills of hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of pounds by cutting Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief; further regrets that the Government has provided conflicting information on the number of farms that will be affected, and has not conducted an impact assessment of this approach; notes that figures from the National Farmers’ Union suggest that some three quarters of farms will be affected; further notes that farmers tend to be asset-rich but cash-poor and that figures from the Country Land and Business Association suggest the average arable farm will have to sell 20% of its land to pay the Inheritance Tax bill that this policy will cause; notes that the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers anticipates that this will affect 75,000 owners of farming businesses over a generation; notes also that this land is not guaranteed to be used for food production if sold; and calls on the Government not to impose the cuts to Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief set out in the Budget that will lead to the end of family farming as it has been known for many generations in the UK.

This Government have driven farmers to despair. The hike in national insurance, the acceleration of delinked payments, the fertiliser tax, the double cab tax, the stalling of capital grants, the scrapping of the rural services delivery grant and the slowing down of applications to farming schemes are all conspiring against our rural economy and the survival of British farms. Yet the Government have added a death tax to that: the family farm tax, which is seeing families across the United Kingdom worry about whether they will be able to hand on their farms to their children, as generations before them have done.

In the 36 days since Labour’s Budget, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State and Ministers have tried to justify their family farm tax, which will break up family farms, by claiming that only 500 farms will be affected each year. Awkwardly, the figures used by the Chancellor are contradicted by figures produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The left hand does not know what the far-left hand is doing. When the figure was queried by the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association, farmers across the United Kingdom and us Conservatives, Ministers told us all rather patronisingly that we did not understand and that farmers should seek professional advice. Well, farmers have sought professional advice, which has revealed just how badly wrong the non-economist Chancellor has got her numbers.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

In a moment.

Since the Budget, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers has analysed the family farm tax and applied tax law and the realities of modern-day farming to it. Its analysis has revealed that up to 75,000 individual owners of farming businesses could be affected over the coming generation, even before inflation, which is the equivalent of five times the Government’s figure of 500 farms affected in 2026-27. How could they have got this so wrong? It is because this city-dwelling Chancellor, Secretary of State and Exchequer Secretary do not understand modern farming or the countryside that they have overlooked a major area of tax policy and forgotten to consider thousands of farmers.

As the Exchequer Secretary has confirmed, the Government forgot to include one of the three routes to the relief in their calculations. They have not included business property relief-only claims in their figures, which means that as many as 14,000 tenant farmers who cannot claim agricultural property relief because they do not own the land on which they farm are absent from their calculations. What is worse is that Ministers do not know how many farmers are affected by that.

The city-dwelling Chancellor and Secretary of State have also forgotten about the farmers who in years gone by followed professional advice and transferred their farms into companies or partnerships. Those farmers will claim only BPR, so they have been left out of the calculations. Again, Ministers do not know how many farmers are in that position.

[Victoria Atkins]

I will in a minute.

I am told by advisers that some farmers choose to use BPR only because it is easier in probate. Guess what? Yet again, Ministers do not know how many farms are in that position, and they have not been included.

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and then to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). I have so much more to say.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the shadow Minister for bringing forward the debate. The collective decision to have this debate in the House is one that my farmers and constituents very much support. Professional legal advice sought through the Ulster Farmers Union—I must declare an interest as a member of the union—indicates that somewhere in the region of 65% of small farmers and family farms in Northern Ireland will be affected. When it comes to understanding that, has Labour really got no idea what is going on?

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening. The evidence is building again and again against the assurances that the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Exchequer Secretary and the farming Minister have given the House. Frankly, the farmers outside deserve better, and so do we as Members of Parliament.

I will give way to the hon. Lady and then carry on with the calculations that the Government have got so wrong.

NHS Performance: Darzi Investigation

Debate between Victoria Atkins and Jim Shannon

Monday 7th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

On this, the first anniversary of Hamas’s horrific attack on Israel, our thoughts are with Israel, the victims of that horrific attack and their loved ones, and with all those who are trying to rescue the hostages, get aid where it is needed and bring peace to the region.

Day 95 of this fumbling Labour Government, and yet another general debate to talk about a report that we talked about three weeks ago. That seems to be the golden—or Gray—thread running through this Government: lots of talk, but where is the action? If the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care wanted to make a meaningful contribution to the nation’s health, why did he not bring forward the Second Reading of the Tobacco And Vapes Bill this evening, to help our children and bring about the first smokefree generation? That Bill is ready to go; why are the Government not?

The right hon. Gentleman could have provided an update to the House on the 40,000 more appointments that he promised many times during the campaign, which the latest answer from his Minister to a written parliamentary question suggests is nowhere near happening. It is perhaps about as likely as the Prime Minister paying for his own glasses. The right hon. Gentleman could have set out the steps that his Department is taking to prepare the NHS for winter. In the spring, I asked the system to start planning for this winter. How many beds, ambulances and care packages has he put into the system to prepare it for winter? He could have set out the terms of the royal commission on social care. We in the Conservative party stand ready to help on that royal commission, because we believe in constructive opposition, yet we have heard nothing from this Government. The right hon. Gentleman could have launched the much-hyped 10-year plan, which he promised before the election was “oven-ready”, but appears to be in the deep freeze. How many more Government resets will there be before that 10-year plan is launched?

Instead, in their first 95 days, this Labour Government have talked down the economy and the NHS, stopped new hospitals from being built, scrapped NHS productivity improvements, overseen GPs entering industrial action, been exposed in a health cronyism scandal, and opened a dispute with hundreds of thousands of nurses and midwives. They seek to justify all of that with the Darzi report. That report, from a former Labour Health Minister, has sunk as quickly as it was briefed out. It looks backwards, but not far enough to mark the last Labour Government’s policy and operational failures. If this Government are serious about reforming the NHS—and I genuinely hope they are—they and the Secretary of State need to transition quickly from opposing to governing.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

I will finish this point. That transition must begin with the language that the Secretary of State is choosing to use about the NHS. Interestingly, we have heard a little bit of nuance for the first time tonight, perhaps because health leaders are raising concerns that his “broken” narrative is damaging public confidence and will lead to people not coming forward for care, as was reported on the day that the right hon. Gentleman gave his speech to conference. That narrative is hurting the morale of staff who are working tirelessly for their patients. As the confected doom and gloom of the new Chancellor damages business confidence, so too does the Health Secretary’s relentlessly negative language risk consequences in real life.

Let me say what the Health Secretary refuses to acknowledge: the NHS is here for us and is ready to help. Its dedicated staff look after 1.6 million people per day, a 25% increase from the days of the last Labour Government. That is why I am always a little concerned whenever the right hon. Gentleman harks back so far; I do not think he has quite understood the change in capacity and scale of the national health service since we inherited it from the last Labour Government. The majority of those 1.6 million people will receive good care. [Interruption.] These are just facts, but I know the Health Secretary finds them difficult to receive.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

First, I am very sorry to hear that. Again, the way we were trying to deal with the enormous increase we have seen in mental ill health across our country was first of all to boost mental health services for children and young people. Indeed, the hon. Member may not be aware of this, but we rolled out mental health support teams across nearly 45% of schools. We wanted to complete that to 100% of schools by the end of the decade, and I very much hope that the Secretary of State will be taking up that policy and delivering it.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) might know that there seems to have been a real increase in eating disorders since the pandemic. We know, for example, that the impact of social media sites, and the algorithms that sit behind them, can lead people who are already feeling very vulnerable into even darker places. So when the Secretary of State says that there should be a cross-Government piece of work, I very much agree with him—I hope he will achieve that through his mission board. But we really have to look at how we as a society can deal with some of these causes, because I do not think anyone is happy with seeing such a huge increase in anxiety and mental ill health among our young people since the pandemic.

[Jim Shannon]

One of the things that came up at our party conference some time ago was a recommendation from the British Medical Association and the General Medical Council to encourage medical students into local trusts by paying their fees, which would pay for itself given the cost of locum doctors in each of our health trusts. Would the shadow Secretary of State support that, and would she in turn encourage the Government to do likewise?

[Victoria Atkins]

I hope the hon. Gentleman knows by now that when he makes a suggestion, I will take it away. He will appreciate that, as part of a constructive Opposition, I want to look carefully at the ramifications—both the intended and unintended consequences—of policies suggested in the Chamber, but that sounds very interesting. I thank him for his contribution, as always.