Inheritance Tax

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)]

I thank the shadow Chancellor for delivering a speech for which it was, this time, much clearer when it had ended.

The Opposition motion invites us to speculate on the contents of the Budget. As right hon. and hon. Members will be used to me and my colleagues saying, the Government do not comment on speculation and the Chancellor will deliver his Budget in this House on 28 October. However, I am free to share with the House some of the context in which the Chancellor will take his decisions.

The Budget comes amid unprecedented economic shocks, with conflicts in both the middle east and Europe hitting people here and around the world. However, we are not powerless. That is why we are giving families and businesses breathing space where we can and starting to make the big, long-term changes needed to create good jobs and growth in every postcode. Everything we do at this Budget will be built on fiscal stability. Our fiscal responsibility has been underlined by the IMF this week, and as it made clear, our country is forecast to have the lowest borrowing—that is to say, the smallest deficit—in the G7 from 2029. Our country is demonstrating strong resilience in the face of global challenges, with the joint second-fastest growing economy in the G7 this year.

To deliver good growth in every postcode and to provide breathing space for families and businesses, we must continue to take responsible choices. That is why, as the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have made clear, fiscal discipline will underwrite every promise this Government make to the British people. We will meet our fiscal rules at the Budget later this month with a buffer against uncertainty. We will control borrowing so that we can bring inflation down and reduce long-term pressures on our public finances. That is the right thing to do, because there is nothing progressive about a Government spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest, rather than on the priorities of working people.

This Government inherited public finances that were in a mess and public services that were in crisis. Since the general election, we have put the NHS back on its feet, with the waiting list down by more than 250,000 since the Government came to power. Last year we delivered the highest number of affordable homes in a decade. We are lifting over half a million children out of poverty by scrapping the two-child limit and expanding free school meals. We are investing in Britain’s future, with an additional £120 billion of capital investment across this Parliament, and in Britain’s roads, rail, energy and other infrastructure that is so important to driving growth. Through reforms to how our country works, from planning to pensions and skills, we have helped to create the conditions for private investment to rise by almost 5% since the general election.

We have always been prepared to take the responsible choices to fix the foundations of our economy, repair our broken public services and deliver the investment needed to support growth. That includes driving down waste and driving up efficiency in the public sector, with a 16% reduction in departmental admin budgets by the end of the spending review period. We are reprioritising spending so that taxpayers’ money is spent on their priorities, cancelling digital ID in order to remove VAT from household electricity bills, reprioritising Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government spending to help tackle homelessness and bringing the national bus cap down to £2 for 2027, funded by savings from the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. We are reforming the welfare system through the Milburn and Timms reviews, while tackling welfare fraud and error to save over £14 billion by the end of 2030-31, and we have taken decisions on tax to ensure that we meet our fiscal rules of living within our means.

Our decisions on tax reflect our commitment to sound public finances. We want to make sure that those with broader shoulders make a fair contribution. Although very few people, if any, want to pay more tax, we recognise that only a small proportion of the largest estates pay inheritance tax, and it makes an important contribution to the public finances.

Inheritance tax is forecast to raise almost £15 billion in 2030-31 to help deliver public services, and it is currently payable on around one in 20 estates. Our reforms to agricultural property relief and business property relief, introduced in April of this year, are expected to raise around £300 million per year, while offering substantial protection for family farms and businesses. Through a 100%—

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point. He focuses on how much he believes this tax will raise, but what does the impact assessment say about how many businesses will close as a result of this tax?

[James Murray]

The impact assessment, or tax information note, is published alongside the publication of the policy at the Budget.

I want to just make the point that to protect family farms and family businesses, the threshold for the 100% relief goes up to £2.5 million per person, and above that there is a 50% rate, which means an effective inheritance tax rate of up to 20% above that. Furthermore, the repayments can be spread over up to 10 years interest free, so there are substantial protections in place for family farms and family businesses. That 100% relief on the first £2.5 million of qualifying agricultural and business assets means that a couple can pass on up to £5 million of qualifying agricultural and business assets free of inheritance tax between them, in addition to the existing allowances such as the nil rate band. These protections will support family farms as we work with farmers to build a sector that is productive, profitable and resilient for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

There is a principle at the heart of the motion and it is a simple one: what a person earns through a lifetime of work belongs to them and not the Treasury, and that when the time comes, they have the right to pass on what they have earned to the people they love. It is neither a loophole nor a privilege. It is the oldest instinct there is: for people to work, to save and to leave their children better off than they were. That stands in stark contrast with the Government’s approach. The question that we have put before the House is not complicated: should Governments spend less so that families can keep more? The Conservatives’ answer to that question is yes.

In the Mandelson files published this summer, we saw that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions wrote to Peter Mandelson:

“Every meeting I have is, ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others’.”

He was right to be exasperated. Some 7 million people—more than 10% of our population—now claim at least one benefit. We will spend over £100 billion on health and disability benefits just this year. A full-time worker on the national living wage takes home £22,500 a year. Someone out of work on credit, with the average housing support and personal independence payment, receives £25,000 a year. We now pay more not to work than to work. However, if somebody has worked and then dies, her unspent pension will now be taxed because of this Government, and the house that she spent her life paying for will be taxed. It beggars belief that Labour MPs looked at those figures, recognised how they are strangling our country, and concluded that they would rebel against the modest reforms proposed by the last Prime Minister. Indeed, the Labour party would rather remove a sitting Prime Minister than attempt to create a fairer system.

I ask Members to imagine that they are farmers in the communities that I serve. You are up at the crack of dawn and working until very, very late. It is relentless every day. Your profit margins are the lowest of almost any industry, but you persevere, because you value your land and your family’s connection to it, and you take pride in feeding our country. But Labour hits you with increased road taxes on double-cab pick-up trucks, increased employer NICs and minimum wage, taxes on fertilisers, the cruel family farm tax, and now a levy on the land itself when it passes from parent to child.

Lincolnshire and Rutland are the breadbasket and agricultural heartland of Britain. We are proud of what we do to feed this country, so it is offensive when the Nature Minister says that traditional rural Britain—the pubs, ale and loyal dogs that we adore—is a far-right fantasy that never really existed. I invite her and any Labour MP to come and visit Rutland, Stamford and the Harborough and South Kesteven villages, because we are not a fantasy; we are communities who deserve respect—although if I came from her constituency, I would also consider it a fantasy to see the type of idyllic life that we lead in our villages. We will never apologise for valuing the traditions and way of life that make our rural communities so special.

The Nature Minister was wrong when she claimed that rural pubs “never really existed”. She would, however, have been correct if she said that she and her Government are doing their best to wipe them out of existence. Under Labour’s plans, the Bertie Arms in Uffington faces a 2,000% increase in business rates by 2029. The hard-working landlady has dismissed the minor relief that came as tokenistic and says that it will make no difference because of Labour’s other tax hikes.

[Daisy Cooper]

I agree with the hon. Lady. The business rates increases under this Government are very damaging, but she will remember that the previous Government also pledged to fundamentally reform business rates and completely failed to do so. Does she understand why businesses across the country are fed up with both the Conservatives and Labour on this point?

[Alicia Kearns]

I am grateful to have the chance to state our record. We cut employee national insurance twice, taking 9 million workers out of it. We raised the national insurance threshold. We abolished the lifetime allowance. We cut fuel duty. We had business rates relief for hospitality and pubs. We did all those things to support our pubs and businesses.

The Prime Minister told the voters of Makerfield that the family farm tax “needs looking at again”, so I wonder whether Members in this Chamber who have given it their full-throated support this week will regret their words in a few weeks’ time. Let us see. Since he took office, Members on his Front Bench have excitedly chattered about reindustrialisation, as if the word on its own builds a factory; it does not, and neither does taxing a business at the moment that it passes to the next generation. From April, the family firms in my communities, such as Rutland Plastics, Coles Plant Centre, Arnold Wills, CS Ellis and Rutland Garden Village, and independent family shops on my high street, like Harrison & Dunn and Walkers Bookshops, will all face the same death tax as our wonderful farmers, like Percy Gilman.

Business property relief existed for a reason—so that a company need never be broken up to pay the Treasury. Those same businesses are not just economic powerhouses in communities like mine, but social powerhouses, as Philippa Wills said to me this morning. They are rooted in our communities and make decisions for the longer term, because they care about what happens to our people, communities and towns. The Government do not care about that; they have broken the social contract between businesses and our young people and those in part-time work, because they have made it so much harder to hire them. Who loses out the most, apart from young people? Women, because it is women who rely on part-time employment when raising their children who are now unable to pick up additional work. That is the true cost of this tax: not the £15 billion a year that the Government forecast it will raise by 2030, but the businesses never started, the capital that leaves, and the women and young people left without jobs.

Tax cuts must be paid for, which is why we have put spending cuts first, but let us be clear. If we tax a family firm at death, the founder sells early, moves abroad or never builds at all. If we tax a farm, the fields go to a solar developer, or they are built on and we become reliant on foreign imports. If we tax the people who work and pay the people who do not, we should not be surprised when fewer people work. We want people to work—we want them to be able to celebrate and benefit from a lifetime of toil and hard work. That is human nature, and nothing to be ashamed of.

We have a Government who are asking who they can tax, and an Opposition asking how much more people can keep. Labour’s assault on farms and businesses, its insistence that rural life does not exist, and its addiction to spending will destroy this country. We want people to succeed, and we hold our rural way of life close to our hearts. That is why everyone must support this motion today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government’s policy on inheritance tax has been set out today. We will not be voting for the motion before us today because we do not believe that slashing public services and public spending for people living in £10 million mansions is the right priority. That is the Conservatives’ choice; it is not ours.

This Government will deliver good growth in every postcode and provide breathing space for families and businesses. Underneath all that, we will continue to focus on fiscal discipline. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor have been clear that we will meet our fiscal rules at the Budget later this month with a buffer against uncertainty, and we will continue to control borrowing so we can bring down inflation and reduce the long-term pressures on our public finances. That is the right thing to do, because there is nothing progressive about a Government spending £1 in every £10 on debt interest rather than on the priorities of working people.

[Alicia Kearns]

The Minister has just touched on what the Prime Minister has said. The Prime Minister also told the people of Makerfield that he needed to look again at the family farm tax. Why are the Labour Benches so full of MPs this evening saying that we are absolutely not moving on it when the Prime Minister made that very clear promise during the by-election? Who are we to believe: the Prime Minister then or the Prime Minister now?

[Dan Tomlinson]

We will vote against the Opposition motion this evening. The responsible approach that this Government are taking stands in stark—

Oral Answers to Questions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to make it clear that improving services for passengers is our absolute priority as rail operations come into public ownership. When Southern rail is brought into public ownership, it will be expected to focus relentlessly on improving passenger experience, reliability and punctuality, and it will be held to account for doing so.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

In rural areas like Rutland and Stamford, we are reliant on our cars, so fuel costs are hitting us hard. I have a simple ask that the Chancellor could deliver on now: will she expand the 5p per litre rural fuel duty relief to more areas as soon as possible, particularly Leicestershire, Rutland and Lincolnshire, where it is desperately needed?

[James Murray]

As my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary has already set out many times today on fuel duty, we inherited plans from the previous Government that would have seen fuel costs go up for people across the country. We have extended the 5p cut on fuel duty and extended the freeze, which is an important way of helping people with the cost of living right now.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I urge colleagues to keep their questions short, and for the answers to be on point.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

This U-turn comes too late for too many. It is extraordinary to hear Labour MPs saying that their farmers are delighted; mine are sick with relief after 14 months. At the Liaison Committee, the Prime Minister accepted that he knew that some farmers had planned to take their lives or had already done so, yet it still took him well over a week to decide that rural lives matter. What was it that suddenly changed after 14 months for him to decide that our farmers should be stood by, and should not be questioning whether or not they were going to be here for next Christmas?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Over the course of recent months—since I have been in the Government, from September onwards—Ministers from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and from the Treasury have continued to engage with farming communities and with business communities. As has been raised by some Members today, it is worth remembering that this change affects business property relief, not just agricultural property relief. As a result of that listening and engagement, we have come forward with this change in time for it to be included in the Finance (No. 2) Bill.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Given that he appears to be leading for the Government on this issue, rather than the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, can the Minister tell me how many farmers he has met personally over the last three months? He seems very confident about how this will affect them. The exact number, please, of the farmers you have met personally over that period.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. Lady should ask how many farmers the Minister has met, rather than how many I have met.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Carmichael]

I think I just said more or less exactly that. A debate of the sort that I am talking about would have allowed for a wider debate about farming finances. We have had 70 years of very direct Government intervention in the agricultural economy through farm subsidies. Taking a step back, critical though those farm subsidies are, their net effect has ultimately been to keep farmers poor. There is now such an enormous mismatch between the capital value of the assets being farmed and the derisory return on them. DEFRA tells us that there is a 0.5% return on capital. Farmers in my constituency tell me that a £3 million farm will give them an income of about £25,000 a year. That is pretty much in line with DEFRA’s figures.

We hear about farmers working into their 80s. It is a slightly patronising and very romantic view of doughty farmers working on into their 80s because they are seized with a sense of vocation. There absolutely is a sense of vocation among farmers, but let us not forget that a lot of them work into their 70s and 80s because they have been running businesses that have had no spare money to put into a pension so that they can look after themselves in their old age.

[Alicia Kearns]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about just how little farmers earn, and yet they are consistently being described by Labour Members as asset-rich. Should farmers not fall into their definition of working people, and therefore Labour should be on their side rather than what they are doing to them?

[Mr Carmichael]

“Working people” hardly does justice to farmers. Some of my young constituents told me they were working for returns of about £6 an hour. There is a reason I chose not to become a farmer at 16 and why I thought law was a more attractive career opportunity to pursue, but I bow to no one in my admiration for those who make that choice.

Of course, there is the question of those who have made their estate planning decisions on the basis of APR being available. Others have pointed to that, but it is absolutely critical, and it goes beyond estate planning. I wonder how many farmers over the years decided in a divorce settlement to take the farm as their part of the capital, because they have a familial and emotional connection to the land, and are now finding that what looked like an equitable settlement a few years ago risks being much more inequitable.

The particular opportunity I fear we have missed is that in relation to tenant farmers. The Tenant Farmers Association came up with an excellent proposal, which would reward landlords who grant leases in excess of 10 years with exemption from inheritance tax liability. That would be good for the very people who everybody on both sides of the House says they want to help: the small family farmers. There are multiple reasons why people might buy up agricultural land. I do not know anybody who takes an agricultural tenancy thinking that it will make them a member of the super-rich as a result.

The idea that is being mooted of a clawback—something on which we could see a bit of a sensible discussion and a consensus between the Front Benches—or the idea of a suspended inheritance tax liability which would crystallise only at the point of the land sale after the death of the owner, would both work to keep land in active food production. The irony of the way in which the Government have structured the measure is that, by allowing a 50% relief on farmland above £1 million, the purchase of agricultural land will probably remain an attractive proposition for the super-rich.

We have reached a point in the debate where we need to broaden it out beyond just inheritance tax, and look at the wider question of farming finance and ask ourselves how we can build a consensus that puts farming and food production at the heart of the countryside, where it truly belongs.

Employer National Insurance Contributions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

The Budget forced businesses to compromise on growth—those are the words of the CEO of the Confederation of British Industry. The OBR has said that the jobs tax will reduce wages by £7.5 billion and increase inflation. Both the OBR and the CBI say that it will result in higher prices, so it is no surprise that, over the past few weeks, my inbox has been full of local organisations that are gravely concerned about this £25 billion stealth tax. We are shocked, and they are heartbroken, because Labour promised not to raise national insurance. Indeed, the then shadow Chancellor called it a jobs tax, and said that Labour would never pursue such a thing.

Of the organisations that have written to me, which are the most worried? St Barnabas Lincolnshire, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire air ambulance, Uppingham GP practice and Stamford GP practice—the Royal College of GPs has said that it will cost 2.2 million appointments to service these increases—as well as the Vista (The Royal Leicestershire Rutland and Wycliffe Society for the Blind), local nurseries, my local citizens advice, and my care agencies and hospitality businesses have all written to me. As we approached Small Business Saturday, I had my independent shop competition, where around 100,000 votes were cast for the favourite local independent businesses, but those businesses are writing to me to tell me how worried they are. Family businesses are particularly worried. The tax will affect rural communities most of all, because they have smaller margins—they are already worried about farmers going out of business, on whom they are reliant—and we have small, symbiotic communities who support one another.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

The hon. Lady is making an important point about the impact the changes will have on small businesses. In 2021, she voted for the Health and Social Care Levy Act 2021. I have checked Hansard, and she mentioned none of these concerns in 2021. That Act introduced an increase of 1.25 percentage points in national insurance for employers and employees. This is a smaller rise, and it protects employees. Can the hon. Lady say why all of a sudden she is now concerned, when three years ago she was not?

[Alicia Kearns]

The hon. Gentleman may not realise, but at that point we were just coming out of something called the pandemic, and it was a health and social care vote, so yes, I absolutely voted to do what we needed to do at that point in time. It was a specific levy to raise specific funds for our health and social care. I will happily stand behind that vote.

It is interesting, because this tax will make it harder for businesses to recruit; indeed, it will cost three times the price, at about £800 per employee. That is not how to get growth. It is how to lose staff as employers let people go; how to see increased demands on our welfare budgets; how to kill off our town centres; how to see hospices closed; and how to see local authorities ending up reducing services.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Alicia Kearns]

No, I will not give way.

It will be how charities end up redirecting their Christmas appeals, so that people give the pennies they have spare to pay the Exchequer, rather than to support those who are most desperate—those on whom charities should be spending their money.

This change is the largest tax grab of Labour’s Budget, and it will impact women and young people most of all. Yet there is an absence of speeches from the Government Benches about its impact on those who will be most affected. Employers are the growth makers, and they are begging Labour to reverse this tax, but working people will be those worst affected. There is still time for Labour to reverse course—to listen and to recognise that the ideology it is pursuing is going to harm our communities. It is time for Labour to think about the impact and reconsider what it is doing, particularly to our GP practices and others—I look forward to hearing from the Minister when I share the letters with him. It is not too late. Labour must reverse course and fundamentally change its ways.

VAT: Independent Schools

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

No, independent schools do pay tax on supplies. No tax is charged on education, whether in an independent school or in other settings, and that is a very long-standing principle.

Let me clear up one very important definitional point, which I ask colleagues to reflect on. There is no tax break involved. It would be a tax break if a person who had a child at an independent school and was not taking a place at a state school were charged less tax as a result. That does not happen in the United Kingdom. Everybody contributes to state sector education, whether or not they take up a place.

The principle of no tax on learning is a fast one, and once we loosen it, we do not know where we will go. Where might the Treasury look next? Private nurseries, perhaps? Music lessons? Private tutoring? What is the philosophical difference between independent school education and private tutoring?

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

Let me make a point to demonstrate how rushed and ill thought through this policy is. My understanding is that if a child in a nursery has turned five but the other children in the class have not, all the parents in that nursery year will have to pay VAT on their child’s nursery fees. That is how badly this has been thought through.

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is right. That comes from the rushed nature of the legislation. The sloppy drafting means that children who are not of school age get dragged into this tax if they happen to be in the same room as children who are, and there are concerns about what might follow in other borderline cases.

The Government claim that the policy is about revenue, not politics, but having read the Secretary of State’s twitterings, I think hon. Members could be forgiven for mistaking the motivation. It is entirely spurious, for multiple reasons, to link this tax to 6,500 teachers, mental health support or anything else. The money will go into general Exchequer receipts, and anyway, 6,500 teachers is not that many in the scheme of things, given the 468,000 there are now. That is a compound growth rate of 0.3% over five years—and, by the way, a lot fewer teachers than we recruited in the last five years. Mental health support teams are already being rolled out, and they cover primary schools as well as secondary schools. It is not clear what the difference is in the new Government’s policy on mental health support, other than that it will not include primary schools.

To the extent that the VAT revenue could be hypothecated, it looks a lot more like that revenue would reduce cuts to education resourcing, rather than increasing it. If the policy is about revenue, not politics, the Government could easily commit to one simple thing today. They are confident, they tell us, that the policy will raise a large sum of money and not create large costs. Will they commit to measuring and reporting back on that, and if it turns out, against expectations, that they were wrong, will they reverse it?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I am not quite sure what happened there, but I will carry on. I was making an important point, which is that the Government will monitor closely the impact of our policy changes on affected diplomatic and military families, with any changes to the scheme being considered as part of the ongoing spending review.

[Alicia Kearns]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[James Murray]

I will make a bit of progress. In our consultation on the technical detail of this policy, we have been engaging widely and in depth, and the views of MPs are an important part of that. As I said earlier, it has been a tough but necessary decision to end tax breaks for private schools. We believe it is the right decision, and one we need to implement as soon as possible to help raise the funding that we need to deliver our priorities for state education in this country. We are determined to make sure that education, which is available for all, is of the highest possible quality, because that is how we ensure that we meet the aspiration of every parent to get the best possible education for their children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I welcome the hon. and gallant Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) to her place. We need more people in Parliament who have service in their hearts. I also thank her for her good comments about her predecessor and in particular for her comments about Corporal Riley, which I know my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) felt deeply. I thank her for taking the time to do that.

Sadly, I turn to a decision by the Government that does not have service to the country at its heart. This is a cruel, vindictive policy that will damage the prospects of children in both state and independent schooling. It is particularly damaging also for rural economies, which seem to have been entirely overlooked. In Rutland and Stamford, we have 10 independent schools that cater for a vast number of pupils—particularly those from military families and those with SEND—and what is common to all those families is how hard they work for their children to have the right education for them.

I have received heartbreaking emails from parents who have had to sacrifice the education they have worked so hard for. One was from a mother of twins who are midway through their GCSE year. There is no space in the state sector for them—twins who now question whether they will be able to sit their GCSEs because of this policy.

The entire county of Rutland has zero available state school spaces in years 10 and 11, and only three SEND spaces.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

rose—

[Alicia Kearns]

Is the hon. Gentleman just going to stand, or will he ask to intervene?

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Alicia Kearns]

There we go.

[Ben Coleman]

I am most grateful to the hon. Member. Does she not think that a little bit of an apology from her and her colleagues for the disgraceful SEND system that they left as a legacy is merited? As people cannot get EHCPs or support in the state sector, and councils and cash-strapped families are turning to the private sector, should she not apologise for the legacy that she and her colleagues have left the country?

[Alicia Kearns]

I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman is repeating the lines that the Whips gave him for this morning’s Westminster Hall debate. I was not talking about SEND. It is deeply discourteous to the House to intervene on a Member with a point that is completely separate from the point that they are making; he will come to learn that in time.

As I said, the entire county of Rutland has zero available state school places for years 10 and 11. That means children will now not be able to get their education. I ask the Minister directly: what would he say to 16-year-olds who are to be forced out of their school in January with no alternative place to go and nowhere to do their studies? This is a vindictive policy, and it is absolutely wrong.

I want to touch on the contribution to local rural economies. In Rutland, education is the biggest single employer. As I said, we have 10 schools across 11 sites. In 2022-23, one secondary school in Rutland and Stamford contributed £50 million to UK GDP. It contributed £30 million to local GDP, £14 million was paid in tax to HMRC, and savings of £5.5 million were made to local schools through school places that were not taken. Some 70% of this school’s expenditure is on staffing and, with the imposition of VAT, it is forecast to make a loss for the first time ever. Jobs are being lost. When 70% of the budget is staffing, what does a school do? Cuts have to be made in people’s jobs. More than 2,000 people locally are employed directly by independent schools, and that is not to mention those working in the supply chain, whether driving buses, providing food or flowers, or working in cafés and shops. Rural economies do not have many options at the moment, and independent schools are a bedrock for them. The economic impact of these jobs on rural communities should be considered in an impact assessment, but I very much doubt one has been carried out.

Looking at the national economic picture, the Adam Smith Institute concluded that every child in independent schooling contributes £28,000 to the public finances. The average £2,700 saved on VAT makes a return to the taxpayer of 1,040%. If 5% of independent school pupils leave, the Government will generate £1 billion through this policy. If 10% to 15% of pupils leave, the Government will generate no revenue. If 25% of pupils leave, the Government will lose £1.58 billion, because they are doing something vindictive and wrong.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that people putting their children through independent school are paying twice? They pay once through their fees and once through income tax. If they are removed from the system, that will mean less money for education.

[Alicia Kearns]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. These parents have already paid into the state school system as if their child were going to state school, and they are net contributors to the local education system and the tax system, because they have chosen to ease the pressures on state schools by taking their child out. This is basic economics, and that is why the Government do not understand it.

Independent schools make a huge and optional contribution to the national teachers’ pension scheme. Some could choose to mitigate their increased costs from the imposition of VAT by opting out of the TPS. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that this would have on the financial viability of the TPS?

Additionally, a number of independent schools in my constituency provide homes for children in foster care who would otherwise have no stability. These are the kind of schemes they will have to stop. That will again result in increased costs and impact on the state sector, which will have to pick these things up.

It is a long-standing international norm to exempt education from sales taxes. Nurseries, universities, tutors and other education providers are not included in Labour’s proposed VAT increase, although as per my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), there is a toddler tax, which any parent with a five-year-old child in nursery school will suddenly find themselves paying. It is ironic that the Labour party says that it believes in free university education for all, yet many who take up apprenticeships or go into work will not go to university. Why does Labour think that all of us who do not go to university should pay for other people to go to university, but somehow, when it comes to this issue, we should pay for others?

There is also a question about the legality. Senior lawyers, including Lord Pannick, have argued that this proposal will breach European convention on human rights rules on educational choice and access. What assessment have the Government made of the legality of this policy?

I am already seeing the damage of this policy in the heartbreaking dilemmas facing families who have contacted me for help. For some pupils halfway through their exam years, there are no places in the state system. The requests are clear: the Government must delay the implementation until at least the end of this school year, so that children are not disrupted in their education. We need to exempt those pupils in years 10 to 13, so they can take their exams without the added pressure of a school move. We need to help local authorities to boost EHCP assessments rapidly, and we need to undertake a regional assessment of available state school places to exempt pupils who live in areas with no availability, such as Rutland.

I understand that the Labour party wants to make an ideological attack on education and choice, but I urge Ministers to sit down and think this through. The richest will continue to attend private schools and absorb the increased costs, while families who sacrifice day after day will suffer. For those who are interested, I did go to my local comprehensive, and my children go to their local comprehensive, but I think it is right that we support choice for all. Tony Blair once said, “Education, education, education.” I urge the Minister to listen to the ghosts of Labour past and to do what is right for all children at both state and private schools, not what is right for reasons of ideological dogma, which is what the Labour party is currently doing day after day.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Winter Fuel Payment

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

I rise to speak on behalf of the 20,800 pensioners in Rutland, Stamford and the Harborough and South Kesteven villages who will lose their winter fuel payment this winter. This decision affects millions of people who bought into our country’s social contract: you work hard, you pay your taxes and when you grow old, we will support you through your retirement.

I make two requests of the Labour Government, although I know that they will both be rejected. First, I ask them to delay implementation to give people more time to prepare. Older people are some of the most financially cautious in our society. They save, they go without, they avoid debt, and they give what they can to their children, their grandchildren and their friends in need. A delay of a year would give people the time to claim pension credit, if eligible, to face the upcoming increase in energy bills and to plan for the next winter.

Secondly, I ask the Government to give an exemption to anyone suffering from a chronic or life-shortening illness. Since this cut was announced, I have heard from so many people, including Di, who emailed me out of concern not for herself, but for her husband Jeff, who suffers from cancer and has to wear three layers of clothes all year round, even in the summer. As Di put it, the decision—and it is a decision by the Prime Minister—is penalising the ill. Her “hubby will suffer” and she is shattered.

We will hear a lot from the Government about hard choices, but if I were asked to choose between heating the homes of the elderly, cancer sufferers and dementia sufferers or giving a no-strings-attached pay rise to train drivers already on nearly £70,000, the choice would be pretty damn obvious to me. But then, ASLEF did not donate to my election campaign.

People say that we can tell a lot about a society by how it treats its most vulnerable and its eldest. If we apply that test to this cut, anyone with a heart will know that it is wrong. I, for one, will never vote to deprive the most vulnerable and our elderly of warmth.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. We were determined to protect the most vulnerable, which is why we made the decision to ensure that the winter fuel payment would still be paid to the poorest pensioners on pension credit. More than that, we will work with local government and charities to increase the take-up of pension credit, so that everybody who deserves pension credit gets it, and with it the winter fuel payment.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)]

We all remember Gordon Brown’s raid on pensions. It has taken just three weeks for Labour to revert to type, and it is pensioners who are suffering most. Martin Lewis has already criticised the decision online. On the estimates, the right hon. Lady cannot claim that, when permanent secretaries were signing off these estimates—over the weekend, I assume—they did not know about these supposed holes, but if that is so and they did sign them off with holes in them, that would be a breach of their legal duties. So will she be investigating them, or will she be apologising to them for throwing them under the bus today?

[Rachel Reeves]

Instead of blaming civil servants, the hon. Lady should blame the people who are really responsible, and that is the previous Government. The country did the right thing by kicking them out three weeks ago. They deserve never to get their hands on power again.

Wagner Group: Sanctions Regime

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Wednesday 25th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman: he takes us back to when I stood opposite him in our Ministry of Justice days.

I am not being evasive: I am standing in front of the House of Commons to answer the question. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Prime Minister, and he is right that my right hon. Friend was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time. I shall explain the process. I am not going to comment on the individual case, but without prejudice to it and talking about the general situation that pertains to how OFSI considers such cases, there is a delegated framework whereby decisions on legal fees for persons designated under all the sanctions regimes are routinely taken by senior civil servants. I want to be clear on that. We are not aware of any case of legal fee decisions under any of the sanctions regimes being taken by a Minister. I want to be clear with the House on that.

The point about SLAPPs is really important. I was at the Ministry of Justice when it was a live issue. It was first raised in a Backbench Business Committee debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), in conjunction with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), and I responded to that debate for the Ministry of Justice. Let me set out what we are doing. We have been clear as a Government that SLAPPs represent a clear abuse of the legal system, as they rely on threatening tactics to silence free speech advocates who act in the public interest. That is why it is often called lawfare. We ran a call for evidence on strategic lawsuits against public participation and libel reform from March to May 2022 in light of reports that Russia and its allies might be funding litigation against free speech in the UK. We published our response to the call for evidence on 20 July 2022, having closely analysed 120 responses from media, legal and civil society professionals, and we are committed to tackling SLAPPs.

I can confirm that targeted anti-SLAPP reforms will include a statutory definition of SLAPPs, an early dismissal process and costs protection for SLAPPs cases. The Government have committed to primary legislation to make those reforms a reality as soon as parliamentary time allows.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

I understand that the decision was made by civil servants. Will my hon. Friend commit to considering whether we need to introduce ministerial oversight and how quickly that should be done? It is gravely concerning that no civil servant thought that this might need political oversight or some sort of political intervention. Will my hon. Friend also consider the proscription of the Wagner Group, which is a state terrorist organisation responsible for war crimes around the world?

Finally, I have been disappointed by the Government’s response to my multiple written questions about the Wagner Group and the new centre it has set up in Serbia—it is an enormous installation. We are seeing heinous activities in the Balkans, especially around the illegal Republika Srpska day that took place. So my asks are introducing ministerial oversight; looking at the Wagner group in Serbia and putting pressure on the Serbian Government; and finally proscribing that organisation.

[James Cartlidge]

My hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee speaks with great expertise on these matters. She makes some points that are for other Departments to consider, but I will ensure that they are fed back. On the point about the specific process in relation to OFSI, I will not comment on the individual case, but there is a general point about seeking clarification. I can confirm that we will undertake an internal review to see how such cases are considered in the future, and we will say more on that in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Alicia Kearns Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins]

For the majority of businesses trading in Northern Ireland, VAT continues to be accounted for in much the same way as when they trade in the rest of the UK. We are confident that the implementation of the Northern Ireland protocol for VAT mitigates the risk of double taxation in Northern Ireland. We know of one example and HM Revenue and Customs is working with that business to see what more can be done, but I am happy to take up the hon. Gentleman’s question outside the Chamber.

[Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.

Rural poverty is devastating, but it is often hidden by the relative affluence of surrounding rural areas. To ensure that councils have the funding that they need to support those who are living in rural poverty, will the Chancellor and his officials meet me to discuss putting social mobility into funding formulas alongside deprivation, to get councils what they need and to end rural poverty?

[John Glen]

I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. Representing a rural constituency myself, I totally understand the tension in fully reflecting the needs of a sometimes diverse set of communities. I am happy to meet her to discuss the matter further.