Agricultural and Business Property Reliefs: OBR Costing
Debate between Victoria Atkins and Lindsay Hoyle(1 day, 2 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
At the autumn Budget, we took difficult decisions on tax, welfare and spending that were necessary to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public services. We had to do that to address the mess we inherited from the previous Government, which the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) will remember well, having served in that ill-fated Government. We have taken these decisions in a way that makes the tax system fairer and more sustainable.
The Government are better targeting agricultural property relief and business property relief to make them fairer. These reforms mean that despite the tough fiscal context, the Government are maintaining very significant levels of relief from inheritance tax beyond what is available to others.
Under the current system, the benefit of the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to the latest data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. That is just 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief. It is a similar picture for business property relief, with more than 50% of it being claimed by just 4% of estates making claims, which equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief. Our reforms mean that individuals can access 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets, and 50% thereafter. Given the nil rate bands, this means that a couple can pass on up to £3 million between them to a direct descendant, inheritance tax free.
Yesterday, the Office for Budget Responsibility published further details on the data sources and modelling used to estimate costings across a number of the tax measures announced at Budget, including the reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief. The costing is the same as published at Budget, and the approach to modelling the costing is typical and in line with other tax policies. As the Government have set out, the reforms mean that almost three quarters of estates claiming APR in 2026-27, including those that also claim BPR, will not pay more inheritance tax. This is a fair approach that protects farms while also fixing the public services we all rely on.
Mr Speaker
I call the shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Victoria Atkins
Having inherited the fastest-growing economy in the G7, the Chancellor’s Budget has led to the highest borrowing costs since the pandemic, growth flatlining, business confidence plummeting and job freezes. Who has Labour chosen to pay the price for its economic illiteracy? Pensioners, family businesses and farmers. For months, farmers, farming businesses, professional advisers and economists, and now eight major supermarkets, have warned the Chancellor that she has got her figures wrong, but Ministers cleave desperately to their soundbites. Let us hope that they listen to the OBR.
Yesterday, the independent OBR released additional information about this particular measure and reiterated the “‘high’ uncertainty” of the predicted yield. It noted that the yield of the measure is likely to be reduced by 35% because of behavioural responses, and that it is unlikely to reach a steady state for 20 years. The OBR also expressed grave concerns about the impact on older individuals and their ability to plan. In short, the reassurances provided by Ministers are falling almost as flat as the economy.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has lectured this House about the perils of sidelining the OBR. In light of its analysis, will the Minister now commit to a full and proper review of this dreadful policy? The public have noticed that Government Ministers are failing to answer reasonable questions about their policies, so will the Minister please give straight answers to the farmers and businesses watching our proceedings today?
In light of the new analysis, how many farms does the Treasury think will be affected by the changes to APR, APR/BPR and BPR alone? What assessment has he made of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers’ finding that the Chancellor has underestimated the number of farms affected by the changes by a factor of five? How many tenant farmers will be evicted? As worrying reports of suicides among farmers begin to emerge, will the Minister please do what the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has failed to do and measure the number of suicides over the next 12 months, so that we can understand the human cost of this policy?
Finally, why does the Minister think that Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons, Marks & Spencer, Aldi, Lidl and the Co-op have all come out against this tax policy and believe the Treasury’s figures to be wrong? Why does he think they are wrong and he is right?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Victoria Atkins and Lindsay Hoyle(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I wish a merry Christmas to everyone in the House, and also to everyone in our farming, food, hospitality and water sectors. But not everyone will be able to celebrate Christmas. In recent weeks, a farmer took himself off to a remote part of his farm and killed himself. The message he left his family, who wish to remain anonymous, is that he did this because he feared becoming a financial burden to his family because of changes to inheritance tax. This is the human cost of the figures that the Secretary of State provides so casually. What does the Secretary of State say to that grieving family?
Farming and Inheritance Tax
Debate between Victoria Atkins and Lindsay Hoyle(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Order. I know that Members are jeering about reading. I know that when I came to the House it was a rule that you should not read, but both sides are doing it. Remember that.
Victoria Atkins
As the first female Prime Minister said, if they are going after you personally, it means you are winning the argument.
Let me help the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby with the second set of calculations that her Chancellor has got so wrong, because the Chancellor’s cockeyed accounting extends to the claim that farmers will be able to transfer £3 million tax-free. That is wrong. Only a few in a specific set of circumstances will be able to claim that magic figure. [Interruption.] There are jeers from Government Members, but that amount is not available to widows, it is not available to people who are single and it is not available to people who own a farm with another relative. Labour’s magic £3 million figure assumes that the surviving spouse lives some sort of monastic existence where they have no personal effects to pass on to their loved ones. As farmers from Sussex have asked, why are widows’ families being targeted?
A family wrote to me about their mother, who is a widow. They have calculated that they face an additional £200,000 tax bill from Labour because their father died before the Budget and so did not know to transfer his allowance.
We know that some Labour Members of Parliament have concerns. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), who represents over 500 farms—I do not know whether he is in his place—has asked for assurances on the accuracy of figures used by the Government. Given the demolition of the Chancellor’s figures by the CAAV and many others, will he vote for the family farms in his constituency or will he toe the party line?
The CAAV’s concern about the figures being peddled by the Government is shared by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, CBI Economics and even the Office for Budget Responsibility. But it is not just about the numbers: Labour Members need to understand the emotional toll of this terrible tax. It is the worry, the distress and the sense of betrayal felt by families that should stop ambitious Labour MPs in their tracks before they parrot without question the figures given to them by their Ministers.
Victoria Atkins
I am pretty sure that the hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong about the then Trade Secretary. The Conservative party is in favour of trade deals, but we want trade deals that best support our farming industry. [Interruption.] Before Labour Members start shouting at me, he will know that the fears and concerns about those trade deals have not come to fruition. What is more, we as Conservatives are proud of the fact that we would not enter trade deals that require the flooding to these shores of chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef. I also gently remind the hon. Gentleman that, as a Back Bencher, talking about foreign territories given the context of the debate about the Chagos islands is a bit brave.
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the devastating effect of this policy and to highlight the incredible rounding-up exercise on the Treasury account books of the contribution that it will make to NHS expenditure. With the Labour party having a serious foothold in rural constituencies for the first time since 1945, does she not find this rather inept politics, which is perhaps not surprising from such a London-centric Front Bench? The policy shows a wilful ignorance of rural life and a deliberate attempt not to understand the pressures and is, in essence, selling those rural Labour MPs down the river.
Victoria Atkins
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. There is some interesting polling coming out today, which I will deal with. Of course, Mr Speaker, I very much accept your point about trade, but we are genuinely concerned about the national security implications of the Chagos islands deal.
Victoria Atkins
Very much so, Mr Speaker. I will give way to the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). Is he going to speak up for his farmers?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Gentleman and I, unusually, can join forces on this matter. While I am going to resist the temptation to revisit Brexit, what I will do is point him to paragraph 4.11 of the CAAV report—
Mr Speaker
Order. You are facing totally the wrong way—I cannot pick up anything. Please turn around.
Victoria Atkins
My apologies, Mr Speaker. I am reminded of paragraph 4.11 of the CAAV report, which sets out the peculiar legal problems posed by the family farm tax in the context of Scottish farming tenants. It is incredibly complicated, but that is a real concern, and I trust that the SNP will be exploring it alongside Conservative Members of Parliament.
In conclusion, before ambitious Back Benchers, or, indeed, the Exchequer Secretary, get to their feet and accuse these farmers, and us, of scaremongering—something they have been happy to do in the past—they should think on, discover some humility and compassion, and ask why tens of thousands of decent, hard-working and sensible people across the United Kingdom know that the Chancellor has got it so wrong. Polling by the Country Land and Business Association today shows what the public think: they do not think farmers should be whacked with the family farm tax. They think that Labour has broken its promise to end countryside decline; they think the Government should be cutting taxes on rural businesses; and 70% are not confident that the Labour Government can deliver growth to rural communities.
I say to every hon. Member on the Government Benches: do the right thing and stand up for our farmers, who are the best in the world and whose produce is renowned globally. They feed us, and now they need us. Labour MPs need to join us and axe the family farm tax.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Victoria Atkins and Lindsay Hoyle(2 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I wish His Majesty the King a very happy birthday.
The Chancellor, the Secretary of State and the Food Minister claim that their family farm tax will affect only a quarter of farms, yet after informed questioning by the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association and Conservative Members, the Minister has now admitted that the Government need to check their figures. Should the cost of the family farm tax to farming families not have been checked before the Budget?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Victoria Atkins and Lindsay Hoyle(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I congratulate all nominees and winners in the NHS parliamentary awards yesterday. Their success was richly deserved, and the awards were a very good example of the House coming together to celebrate those who work so hard in our health service and social care services.
In the past five weeks, I have asked the Secretary of State 29 questions at this Dispatch Box, yet he has managed to answer only one. For the rest, he has tried to bluster his way out of his policy decisions, as we have seen this morning. Let us try again. When will be the first week in which we see delivery of his promised 40,000 more appointments?
Victoria Atkins
After 14 years of opposition—two and a half of which the Secretary of State spent on the Front Bench and travelling around the world, funded by other Governments, to look at their healthcare systems—and more than 100 days in government, the right hon. Gentleman does not even know the start date of his own flagship policy. He is no Action Man; he is Anchorman.
Let us deal with Labour’s cruel decision to slash winter fuel payments, which will add pressure not only to patients, but to the NHS. The NHS’s deputy chief operating officer—
Mr Speaker
Order. I have got a lot of people to get in. Members on both Front Benches must be quicker.
Victoria Atkins
After Labour’s cruel decision to slash winter fuel payments, which will add pressure to the NHS, its deputy chief operating officer warned that this winter our health service will not have the extra capacity or funding that it needs, which the Conservatives had previously provided. Why has the Secretary of State—
Mr Speaker
Order. I gave the right hon. Lady a hint to come to an end and not to carry on fully. It is unfair to Back Benchers, who I am trying to represent. I want a short answer.
NHS: Independent Investigation
Debate between Victoria Atkins and Lindsay Hoyle(4 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
How long has the hon. Member been here? Points of order come at the end—you cannot intervene in the middle of these proceedings.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for advance notice of his statement.
The NHS belongs to us all, and we all care about it, so let us stop the political posturing and talk constructively about its future. We all know that our healthcare system faces significant pressures, as do all health systems around the world. We are living longer, and with multiple and complex conditions. We have wider societal pressures, such as the impact of social media on the development of some young minds, as well as the cost pressures of miracle drugs developed by our world-class life sciences sector for their treatment benefits, and the shock of the pandemic has had catastrophic impacts on the NHS and its productivity.
I believe there is much to be proud of in the NHS. Its dedicated staff look after 1.6 million people a day— 25% more people than in 2010. It has more doctors, more nurses and more investment that at any point in its history. It is delivering tens of millions more out-patient appointments, diagnostic tests and procedures for patients than in 2010, and we delivered the fastest roll-out of vaccinations for covid in the world, freeing our society more quickly than other countries. We have more healthcare in the community, with the opening of 160 community diagnostic centres—the largest central cash investment in MRI and CT scanning capacity in the history of the NHS—and 15 new surgical hubs; and the launch of Pharmacy First, helping to free up 10 million GP appointments for those living with more complex conditions. [Interruption.] I say to the Secretary of State that I paid him the courtesy of listening to him in silence, so I hope he will do the same for me.
Victoria Atkins
The right hon. Gentleman was chuntering from a sedentary position. We on the—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I want to hear the right hon. Lady, and Members’ constituents want to know what is being said. Please, let us give the same courtesies that I expected for the Secretary of State.
Victoria Atkins
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
We on the Conservative Benches never pretended that everything was fixed. We have not pretended that we have a monopoly on wisdom or that there are easy answers to the difficult challenges we face. For the NHS to thrive in its next 75 years, it needs to reform, modernise and improve productivity. That is why the Conservative Government, working with NHS England, announced the NHS productivity plan at the spring Budget to transform how the NHS works through better IT systems for frontline staff, the expansion of services on the NHS app, which is used by three out of four adults in England, and the use of new technology, including voice-activated artificial intelligence. Together, that would see productivity grow by 2% a year by the end of the decade and unlock £35 billion-worth of savings, yet the plan is not mentioned in the 163-page report. Why is such an important and forward-looking reform missing from the report, and can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is choosing to cancel it—yes or no?
New medicines and trials are an essential part of the productivity challenge. There is only one mention of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the 163-page report. Do the Government have a strategy for life sciences and the provision of rare medicines, including cancer and dementia drugs? Why have they paused the childhood cancer taskforce?
The need for reform was also why we implemented the first ever long-term workforce plan with NHS England to train even more doctors, nurses, midwives and other healthcare staff for the future. The plan was described by the NHS CEO Amanda Pritchard as
“one of the most seminal moments in our 75-year history”,
yet it is not mentioned in today’s report. Again, why is such an important and forward-looking reform missing from the report? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to cancel the new places and forms of training, including apprenticeships, that were to be provided through that plan?
The need to modernise is why, in 2019, we announced the largest programme of hospital building in modern history: 40 new hospitals across England by 2030 [Interruption.] I would be careful if I were some Back-Bench MPs. Today, seven new hospitals have opened, the Midland Metropolitan university hospital will open at the end of the year—I imagine the Secretary of State will enjoy going to its launch—and a further 18 are in construction. We are not even halfway through the decade.
Since January 2023, it has been Labour’s plan to pause, review, delay and, presumably, possibly cancel those new hospitals. That was when it published its health mission; it is on page 6 for those who have not read it. In other words, it was always Labour’s plan to delay and possibly cancel the new hospitals, and it has nothing to do with the Chancellor’s questionable accounting since the general election.
When that was pointed out in the general election campaign, Labour candidates ran around promising voters that their new hospital or community diagnostic centre was safe with them—in Torbay, Chelsea and Fulham, Basingstoke, Watford, Bracknell, Truro, Corby and Kettering to name a few. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Labour will delay those hospitals?
Mr Speaker
Order. It is difficult, but the time limit is supposed to be five minutes, and it has now been six minutes 22 seconds, so we are well over. Can you now conclude on that sentence?
Victoria Atkins
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
There is one part of Great Britain where, on almost every measure, the NHS performs the worst: Labour-run Wales. The right hon. Gentleman has compared—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry; I meant that you were to conclude now, not to continue with the rest of the speech. I call the Secretary of State.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Victoria Atkins and Lindsay Hoyle(6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
May I welcome the Secretary of State and his ministerial team to their places, and wish them well in their endeavours? With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I should also place on the record my thanks to my superb team of former Ministers, to those in the private office and to officials in the Department for their hard work and support, as well as thanking the doctors, nurses and social care and health professionals with whom I have had the pleasure of working.
Now, to business. In opposition, the Secretary of State described the 35% pay rise demand by the junior doctors committee as “reasonable’. What he did not tell the public was that this single trade union demand would cost an additional £3 billion, let alone the impact on other public sector workers. Will he ask the Chancellor to raise taxes, or will she ask him to cut patient services to pay for it?