Farming and Inheritance Tax
Debate between Esther McVey and Caroline Dinenage(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I rise to join Conservative colleagues in calling on the Labour Government to stop this farm tax. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) and to have heard what he said about those false promises before the general election. Perhaps he, too, wants his Government to think again about what they are doing.
The other week, thousands of farmers took the extraordinary step of coming to Westminster to protest against this misguided policy. Unfortunately, the Government have put their head in the sand and are pursuing this policy. I hope this debate will make them think again and make them listen. I give the Exchequer Secretary 10 out of 10 for appearing in the Chamber today, even though he is a junior Minister at the Treasury—he certainly pulled the short straw by being put on the Front Bench today. I ask Ministers not just to come here, but to listen to what is being said and to really listen to the needs of our farming community.
We have heard a lot today about what British farmers do—they are stewards of the land, guardians of our food security and the backbone of the rural economy—yet the Government show a fundamental lack of understanding of how their policy will affect the industry. They are pushing ahead with it, even though it jeopardises not just farmers’ livelihoods but the very future of our countryside.
The numbers speak for themselves. While the Government claim that only 27% of farms will be affected, the National Farmers Union has warned that 75% of family farms will be affected. If I were in government and I saw the discrepancy between those numbers, I would go back to the drawing board, check the figures and ask why those discrepancies are there, not dig in deeper. I think the curse of this Labour Government and what they will be remembered for is their distinct lack of grasp of detail and of how the economy works, rural and otherwise. [Interruption.] Yes, this Budget has been a disaster of a Budget.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making excellent points. Does she agree that there is not only a lack of grasp of detail, but an astounding sense of arrogance—an inability to listen to those who know what they are doing, the farmers, and who have the experience and the expertise? There is just a blank inexplicable unwillingness by this Government to listen to the voices of expertise and of experience.
Esther McVey
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing that point to the House. This debate allows those on the Labour Benches to say, “Actually, let’s go back to the drawing board. Let’s look at this discrepancy in the numbers.” For all their talk of growth—I return to the Budget—this Government’s policies are delivering the exact opposite of growth, with the change to employer national insurance contributions and the change to rights from day one. They are talking down the economy and crushing growth in the economy, with the forecast being revised to be lower than it was.
Even if the Government do not want to hear this from me, and even if they do not want to hear it from the farmers, I want them to hear it from a Labour-supporting tax expert, Dan Neidle. He has eventually come to the conclusion that Labour’s farm tax is a dog’s dinner of a policy. Originally, Dan had criticised what he saw as “over-the-top coverage” of the impact these tax changes would have, but he says that on closer inspection he has reversed his decision, remarking that these Budget changes would hit
“farmers too hard and tax avoiders too lightly.”
He argues that the policy needs to change. Dan Neidle has said that the Treasury should raise the inheritance tax cap dramatically to around £20 million so
“only the largest and most sophisticated farm businesses become subject to IHT”.
Those on the Labour Benches might not want to listen to me, but I hope they will listen to one of their own tax experts.
Adoption
Debate between Esther McVey and Caroline Dinenage(13 years, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Esther McVey
I completely agree. There are benefits to society, but also huge benefits to the child who progresses into adulthood.
My constituents came to see me about the significant changes to adoption agencies under Labour’s 2010 equality laws, which state that the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is a fundamental principle of human rights laws and that such discrimination can be permitted only in the most compelling circumstances. I completely agree. That is the law; that is the way forward. The consequence, however, has been the closing of Catholic adoption agencies across the country. We have a huge problem, because those adoption agencies were the best at finding parents for older children—the most difficult to place with adoptive parents—and were the most successful in ensuring that those children remained in families.
People said to me, “You put the Catholic Church in a situation in which Parliament’s laws conflicted with the Church laws,” which they considered a higher law. They said, “When does tolerance become intolerance? Why were we tolerant of other people but not of the Catholic Church? When did equality for the Catholic Church become inequality?” We have seen that inequality, as all of a sudden the help that the agencies provided stopped because they were no longer given funding. Agencies that can trace their origins back to orphanages set up in Leeds in 1863 ended up closing down. Of course, we have to live within the law—of course, we must have the correct outcome—but surely that does not mean that we cannot have choice in how adoption agencies go about their work and in how they meet the needs of parents who come to them.
I looked slightly closer at the falling numbers of children being adopted. At the moment, there are 177 adoption agencies, 150 in local authorities and 27 voluntary ones, but if we go back, there were 11 more—Catholic ones that closed. That was a 5.83% decrease in the total number of agencies, but a 30% drop in the number of voluntary ones. How do we replace those valuable agencies? How do we find a selection—a choice—for people wanting to come forward, and how do we find those people? Some people come forward via the Church. This is a fundamental need for them, and they feel they are helping the Church, local communities and children. We must look very carefully at how we reach out to people who want to adopt, but for the past couple of years feel that they have been overlooked. There must be equality for everyone, but we need choice, which will ultimately provide equality for everyone and for the children who so desperately need to be adopted.
Caroline Dinenage
I want to reinforce my hon. Friend’s point. In my constituency of Gosport and in the wider Hampshire area, only 35 children were adopted last year. The older children are, the harder they are to place, and looked-after children have half the success rate of other kids in English and maths. We therefore need to explore every possible avenue to enable older children to be adopted, and the Catholic agencies were very successful at placing them and other harder-to-help children.
Esther McVey
Absolutely. The key point is, “When does tolerance become intolerance?” The Catholics who came to see me thought that that had happened. They believed that providing choice could bring about equality, but that what we had stopped was choice.
My second point, which a constituent of mine, Paula Davies, raised with me, is about the lack of awareness in the education system. She had adopted a daughter, and thought that she had unique needs arising from the adoption, which had happened later in life. She was concerned that the schools did not seem to be fully aware of the requirements of children from such backgrounds. She did not want something specific for her child; she did not want anybody taking her aside or teaching her differently. She was not looking for something different or extreme. However, she told me that two county councils, Hertfordshire and Somerset, have documents for staff who work with looked-after or adopted children in schools, and she wondered why every county council could not have those documents to hand for teachers to read, so that they could be aware of such children’s unique sensitivities and awareness.
Children adopted later in life are particularly vulnerable to rejection. They might take being told off or made to sit over there in a slightly different way, having been rejected early or later in life. It would be a simple change. The documents already exist, so I am not asking for anything with a cost implication. We are asking that they be made available to other councils, and therefore to teachers across the country.