Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

It is important that, as this Government put more money into infrastructure, including transport, it benefits companies and jobs here in Britain. It is not right the Scottish Government spend more on buses made in China than on buses made in Scotland. There is nothing preventing the Scottish National party from investing in jobs and growth in Scotland.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

MPs and councils of all parties across east and north Yorkshire are united in wanting to enhance connectivity in the area, have greener options and optimise the economic output of the area, so will the Chancellor work with us on a cross-party basis to look at reopening a direct rail line from Hull to York, so that those great university cities can be united by effective transport infrastructure once again?

[Rachel Reeves]

I really welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman supports the investment that this Labour Government are making in transport and infrastructure after the 14 of years neglect by his party. We have increased transport spending by 1.9% per year in real terms in every year of this spending review period, benefiting all parts of the country, including Yorkshire, where both he and I have the honour and privilege of being Members of Parliament.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. I discuss mortgages with lenders and, indeed, with the Financial Conduct Authority on a weekly basis, and I will ensure that I pass on his comments.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

3. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the autumn Budget 2024 on costs for businesses.

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rachel Reeves)]

The Government considered all the policies in the autumn Budget carefully, in the context of the difficult fiscal inheritance that we had received from the Conservative party. The decisions to increase employers’ national insurance contributions and reduce the secondary threshold were taken to stabilise the public finances and ensure that money was available for our crucial public services, especially the national health service.

[Graham Stuart]

Johnson’s of Hedon, a DIY store, has traded successfully for 56 years, but its owner Mike Brooke, who has run it throughout that time, says that the national insurance hike introduced by the Chancellor has finally made the business unviable. Was the cruel destruction of Johnson’s of Hedon, and the jobs that it provides, deliberate or an accident?

[Rachel Reeves]

The money from national insurance—which, of course, only came in last month—is being used to fund investment in the national health service. Since the general election we have delivered 3 million additional NHS appointments, which benefits constituents in East Yorkshire and throughout the country. As for supporting business, the trade deal that we secured with the European Union was welcomed yesterday by the Confederation of British Industry, the Food & Drink Federation, the Institute of Directors and others, because it will add about £9 billion to the size of the UK economy.

Income Tax: Personal Allowance

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Lewis Atkinson]

No, I will make progress. The public expect us to do better than that and they expect us to do more. They want wages and pensions to go up faster than inflation, as is now starting to happen. They want to the personal allowance to rise. I pay tribute to Mr Frost again for calling for those measures, and to all those who signed the petition. We should be hugely thankful to have citizens who are engaged in our parliamentary democracy, as the 250,000 people who signed the petition are. I look forward to an interesting, and I hope informed, debate.

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

Members will have noticed that the in-Chamber clock is not functioning, but the time can be seen on the annunciator—time is probably not of the essence in this debate. I remind Members that if they want to speak, they should bob, but I do not think that applies either.

Spring Statement

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 26th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I was pleased to note in my statement that Thanet has already come forward with plans to build affordable housing under the affordable housing plan, for which I set out more money. Opposition parties that abstain or vote against the Planning and Infrastructure Bill are voting against homes for our constituents and jobs for our young people. On the Government side of the House, we back the builders, not the blockers. We back opportunities for young people and housing for our constituents. It is a shame that those parties do not do the same.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The Chancellor claimed that growth was her top priority, yet she has taken the fastest-growing economy in the G7 and brought it to a shuddering halt. She promised that there would be no tax rises, but next week’s jobs tax will put tax rises on ordinary working people. Today, she has cut the housing numbers by 200,000 and put up borrowing by £18 billion in the next two years. Is it not time that the Prime Minister invited the Chancellor next door and said, “Rachel, you’re fired”?

[Rachel Reeves]

The plans that we inherited from the previous Government saw the OECD forecast that the UK would have the slowest growth in the G7 this year. It is now forecasting us to have the second-highest growth. That is the difference that this Labour Government are making, moving us up the league tables.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

As I have set out to the hon. Gentleman in a number of debates in recent weeks, the Government have had to take difficult but necessary decisions to restore fiscal responsibility after the completely unsustainable situation that we inherited from the Conservative party. That fiscal responsibility and economic stability are essential for greater investment in the economy, which is the bedrock of the growth that we are so determined to pursue.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will the Minister outline how many billions the Government will spend this year, what percentage £22 billion represents in that amount, and—if I may be so greedy as to ask an additional question, Mr Speaker—how much the flatlining of the economy has cost the Government compared with that £22 billion? I put it to the Minister that the impact of the national insurance contributions rise has been much greater than that of the mythical £22 billion alleged by the Government.

[James Murray]

I am not clear from the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention whether he finally accepts that we inherited a £22 billion black hole when we entered government. I know that several of his colleagues have sought to rewrite history, but the facts are there. We inherited a completely unsustainable fiscal situation, with pressures and a £22 billion black hole, and we had to take difficult but necessary decisions to remedy that. It was important to do so, because without the basic fiscal responsibility and economic stability that a Government should deliver, investment, which is the basis for growth, will not happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is a strong champion for his constituency, for raising this rail project. In relation to such projects, the case that he has made will be an important part of our consideration in the months ahead as part of the spending review. I will arrange for him to meet the appropriate Transport Minister as we make those considerations.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The great university cities of York and Hull are unusual in that they do not have a direct rail line between them. The whole region—Labour MPs, Liberal Democrat councillors, Conservatives—is united in believing that reopening the Beverley to York line, so that the two great minsters of Hull and York can be reconnected, would bring economic growth and a brighter future for the area. Will the Minister agree to meet me and colleagues to discuss this project and how it could help unlock the growth that we all seek across the House?

[Darren Jones]

I am sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman failed to persuade his party, when in government for 14 years, to open that line. I can reassure him that this Government take rail infrastructure seriously, and I will happily consider any detail that he wishes to write to me about.

Finance Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Wild]

Well, the last Government had to deal with a global pandemic and an energy price shock. I am happy to enlighten the hon. Gentleman, who has obviously not read the Red Book: taxes are going up—they are going up to record high levels—under the Budget and the Finance Bill that he is supporting. If he is worried about the tax burden, he should not be voting for this Finance Bill today.

Households are facing financial challenges, and the measures in the Bill will only make things worse. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that real household disposable income will fall by 1.25% by the start of 2029, largely due to the measures in the Budget. New clause 3 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the changes on household finances. The choices that this Chancellor and this Government have made mean that borrowing is increasing, so interest rates will be higher for longer and people’s mortgages will be higher, and hard-working families will be paying billions of pounds to pay off the debt interest. The Government inherited inflation at target, but since then inflation has gone up, meaning less money in people’s pockets.

While it is the Chancellor’s wider mishandling of the economy that is attracting the headlines, the measures in this Bill will have a direct role in squeezing households. Whether it is higher stamp duty, increased alcohol duty, air passenger duty, capital gains increases, vehicle excise duty, changes to the tax treatment of hybrid vehicles or many other measures, the costs of the Bill will be felt directly by households across the UK. When households are stretched, it is essential that we have transparency about what the Government’s actions are doing to incomes.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Of course, the big tax-raising measure in the Budget, as my hon. Friend says, was the national insurance contributions rise, with its £25 billion impact on the economy, yet once we have taken off compensation for public services and the negative impact on activity, it nets only about £10 billion. It is a peculiarly ridiculous policy that nets only £10 billion or £11 billion, yet, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s numbers, will take £19 billion out of people’s pay packets. Does my hon. Friend agree that there has surely never been a more ridiculous measure that costs so much and delivers so little?

[James Wild]

My right hon. Friend makes the point that this measure may have been introduced by a Chancellor who did not actually understand the impact it was going to have. The Government should have stuck to the promise they made at the election not to increase national insurance at all.

New clause 2 concerns the Government’s plan to undermine our energy security by increasing the energy profits levy to 38%, bringing the headline rate on oil and gas activities to 78%, extending the tax by a year and removing investment allowances. The consequences are fairly predictable. Offshore Energies UK has said that the hike will choke off billions of pounds of investment in the North sea, putting 35,000 jobs at risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

Absolutely. I wonder if, when the Prime Minister was in Washington last week, he had the opportunity to talk to President Trump about home-grown energy and the importance of supporting the domestic sector. That is what we on the Conservative Benches certainly support. This is a sector with 200,000 high-skilled jobs, so it is important that we have an up-to-date assessment of the impact of what the Government are doing on our domestic energy production, energy security, energy prices and the UK economy. Unfortunately, we already see some of that impact: the US firm Apache has said that it will end its operations in the North sea by the end of 2029, blaming the extension of the profits levy for making it uneconomic to stay beyond then.

[Graham Stuart]

This measure is vying with the national insurance contribution change to be the most absurd measure. I think that it wins by a head. The Prime Minister says that we must have energy security, and the Climate Change Committee that says we will still need oil and gas for 25% of our energy needs if we meet net zero in 2050, but the Government will have no more licences. We will lose tens of thousands of jobs, tens of billions of pounds in tax, and the engineering capability that we need for the transition. It is absurd on every single possible front.

[James Wild]

My hon. Friend is 100% correct. I think we all know that the architect of much of this is the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, who takes a rather fundamentalist approach. He wants to cover farmland with solar farms, and wants to undermine our oil and gas sector. We on the Opposition Benches disagree. It was the previous Government who introduced the levy, but that was to tackle extraordinary profits at an extraordinary time. The revenue helped to keep energy bills lower for all our constituents, but now the Government are ratcheting up the levy and seem to want to tax North sea exploration out of existence. This is just a further example of the Government’s ill-conceived energy policy. GB Energy is a net zero vanity project that will not generate any energy or be an energy supplier. It certainly will not deliver £300 off bills.

Amendments 67 to 69, tabled in my name, would remove clause 47 and abolish Labour’s education tax. Since 1 January, independent school fees for education and vocational training have been subject to VAT at 20%. It is the first time education has been subject to VAT. Why is that? Because education is a public good, so we do not tax it. Putting VAT on independent schools particularly hurts those on the most modest incomes who have chosen to save and make sacrifices to send their children to a school that they think will serve them best.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Everyone will have an opportunity, if the amendment is moved and selected for a Division, to vote to strip the measure out of the Bill. None of those parents on modest incomes are getting a tax break. They are also contributing to funding places in the state sector, whether or not their children take them up. Ultimately, this is a tax on aspiration, and we oppose it. In Committee, we raised concerns about the impact on certain groups, including children with special educational needs, small schools, faith schools and military families.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. He touches on the issue of children with special educational needs. This is not just about scrimping parents making a choice; this is about people with no choice, whose children have been bullied or who have special needs that have not been met in the state sector, and who have made a sacrifice to put their children in the private sector. People with children in particular need will pay the price of this ill-thought-through measure.

[James Wild]

My right hon. Friend is consistently absolutely right. There are more than 100,000 pupils in independent schools with special educational needs and disabilities who do not have an education, health and care plan. They will have to pay VAT on their school places—that is not covered by the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

We disagree on this point. Fundamentally, Liberal Democrats have said that we should rise the tide for all children, not lower the tide for some. We had a very ambitious education agenda in last year’s general election manifesto. Some areas we had in common with the Labour party, and some not. Our very ambitious agenda for education included a ringfenced high needs budget. I have campaigned relentlessly on improving SEND provision for the past five or six years in this Chamber, in Westminster Hall debates and in various meetings. We do not think that this particular measure is needed to improve SEND funding. Other measures could be used. We have a difference of opinion about how to raise that money.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady’s response to that intervention is perfectly good in its own way, but her new clause simply asks to measure the impact and look at whether the damage is too great to justify it in that broader sense. I hope that the Government consider looking at it, take it seriously and follow the hon. Lady’s arguments.

[Daisy Cooper]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for highlighting that the new clause is about an impact assessment. Labour colleagues will be aware that the VAT provision will come into effect very quickly, but it will not provide the instant support that many children need. If children’s education is disrupted, they immediately suffer disadvantages in their life. If the Government had really wanted to pursue this measure, I would have hoped at the very least that it would have happened in a few years’ time to allow for adjustment. But we are where we are. We do not support the measure, but at the very least we request an impact assessment, as the right hon. Member suggested.

New clause 8 on alcohol duties would require the Government to produce an impact assessment of the Bill’s measures on distilleries, wine producers and the hospitality industry. Since 2022, I have tabled numerous questions in the House and written letters to the Treasury with evidence of falling tax receipts and sales as a result of the measures that the Labour Government are now introducing. They will introduce huge amounts of red tape, which will be very complicated, very costly and, ultimately, will push up prices for consumers and the industry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to contribute once again to a debate on this important piece of legislation. A number of amendments have been tabled by hon. Members from across the House and, while I do not have time to cover them all, I will address the key ones.

As I said in Committee of the whole House, this is a crucial Bill that underpins the new Government’s aim of fixing a tax system that has become less fair and less sustainable over the last 14 years of Conservative government. I am conscious of the need to confine my remarks to the amendments rather than speaking to the Bill itself, but I remind everyone that the Bill was necessary because of the dire economic inheritance that the Government found on entering office last year.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman said that the tax system had become less fair over those 14 years. Does he oppose the increase in the tax burden paid by the higher paid? That is what happened over those 14 years. Does he not see it as fair that those on lower and average earnings saw their share of the tax take go down? Is he opposed to that? In what way precisely, from his deep understanding of the tax system, has he concluded that it has become less fair over the last 14 years?

[Jim Dickson]

When the last Government left office, taxes were at their highest level for 70 years. Thresholds have been frozen, bringing more workers into higher tax rates than was fair on them. The Labour Government are dedicated to trying to ensure that taxes are paid by those with the broadest shoulders and those best able to pay them.

[Graham Stuart]

rose—

[Jim Dickson]

If I might make a little progress before the right hon. Gentleman intervenes once more, that would be lovely.

Opposition Front-Benchers have tabled new clauses 1 to 8, which would require the Government to undertake a number of reviews of the impact of measures in the Bill, ranging from a requirement for the Chancellor to commission and publish an assessment of the expected impact of changes to energy, oil and gas profits levy on domestic energy production, the UK’s energy security, energy prices and the UK economy to a requirement on the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the changes in the Bill on the finances of households at a range of income levels. I gently remind Opposition Members that much of the information requested is already available. Details on tax liabilities are published by HMRC, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Office for Budget Responsibility, and the impacts of the changes set out in the autumn Budget are published in documents including the tax information and impact notes and the “Impact on households” report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nesil Caliskan]

I want to thank the Members who have spoken so far. I have great enthusiasm for the Finance Bill, and I thank the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) for his contributions, alongside the Minister at the time, over the several days I sat through the Bill’s Committee stage. I speak in favour of the Finance Bill as a member of the Committee. I recognise that it is part of the Government’s mission to turn the page on what was a period of decline for the country.

There are several aspects of the Bill that I would like to focus on. To begin with, I see the Government’s proposals on non-dom status as a crucial part of our agenda to ensure that we are delivering a fair approach to taxation in this country. Closing the non-dom loophole, alongside extending the levy on oil and gas companies and ending the VAT exemption for private schools through this Bill, will raise the necessary income to deliver what the Government are trying to do: achieve a balanced budget that will stabilise and then grow the economy.

[Graham Stuart]

If it turns out that the energy profits levy, lugged up to even higher levels, leads to a lower tax take than there would have been if it were at a lower level, would the hon. Lady think that that was a mistake and urge her colleagues to change course?

[Nesil Caliskan]

Ministers have provided an assurance of their assessment, and they do not believe that will be the case. The Government are taking a rounded approach to energy that, alongside our commitments to GB Energy and to a transfer to more renewable energy, will allow there to be a more mission-led approach. I take the right hon. Member’s point, but the Government have provided assurances that there will be constant monitoring and that if changes are required they will deliver them.

--- Later in debate ---

New clause 7 demands transparency on the impact that the policy will have on pupils across the UK. This change will have a disproportionate impact on children with SEND, which will create not just hardship for those children and their parents, but enormous difficulties for the local authorities and state schools that will be required to provide alternative schooling. I urge the Government to back the new clause and reconsider this policy.

[Graham Stuart]

It is a pleasure to take part in tonight’s debate on the Finance Bill, and on the amendments and new clauses that have been tabled. The debate follows several remarkable days and this afternoon’s session when pretty much the whole House came together to congratulate the Prime Minister on his composure and leadership on Ukraine. The need to rebuild our military capability and our hard power as this decade goes on, if we are to ensure the security of Ukraine, Europe, including the UK, and the wider world, was made clear. The Finance Bill has been introduced in that context, because the only way to deliver that security is by having a strong economy and the economic growth that colleagues from across the House have discussed, yet this Budget is the most growth-destructive Budget imaginable.

As we look at the amendments and new clauses, it is worth going back over the context of the Bill, following the pandemic and the energy crisis, which continues in some ways. Thanks to the hard decisions made by the Conservatives, which did not always lead to our popularity and in fact contributed to our electoral disaster last July, inflation was back on target at 2% when the election came. We were the fastest growing economy in the G7 and some 4 million additional jobs had been created. That was the legacy. The incoming Labour Government, with their unprecedented majority and the good will to get on and do something, needed to hold their nerve and recognise that the key components for economic growth had been put in place, which was vital to meet the demands of the NHS, an ageing population and an ever more dangerous world. Instead, what we got from this Labour Government was the most disastrous economic suicide note in history, which has been devastating for the popularity of their party. Never has such a huge majority been squandered so quickly.

New clause 1 addresses the tax that will be taken from a state pension. The Labour Government propose that someone whose only income is the state pension could pay tax on that income. Forget the winter fuel payment being taken away as well—is that really what Labour Members came here hoping to do? I do not think they did, so new clause 1, which would ensure that we look at that, understand it and look for opportunities to change it, is sensible.

New clause 3 looks at the overall tax impact on households and sets our an approach that has to be right. My hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) gave a powerful speech at the beginning of the debate and I fully support the points he made.

We have heard powerful speeches from across the House on special educational needs. Again, I say to Labour Members, did they really get elected to come here and target children with special educational needs? Some 100,000 children who are in the private sector do not have an education, health and care plan, even though they are eligible for one. They will be forced out of their schools with no notice and no time to change and plan. It is a cruel policy that the Labour party should be ashamed of. I fully support amendments 67 to 69, which focus on VAT on private school, as well as new clause 7 proposed by the Liberal Democrats, which was spoken to powerfully by the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper).

On non-doms, it is ironic that, as colleagues have said, the Government have not listened to pensioners, small businesses, farmers and all those with domestic interests. One might have thought that the Government would want to listen to them, reflect and make some changes to lower the negative impacts, but none of them has been listened to in the least. But non-doms in Davos? The Chancellor has gone off there and there is some change on non-doms, but let us not let the Government off entirely on that, because driving out the very rich, who bring us a massively disproportionate amount of revenue, is not sensible.

Socialists often put equality above all other values. As Churchill said:

“The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings. The inherent virtue of Socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.”—[Official Report, 22 October 1945; Vol. 414, c. 1703.]

One of the greatest ways of creating more equality in this country is to drive all the rich people out; drive all the people out who invest, give us jobs and take little from public services, but contribute enormously to them. That always goes down well with the union backers of the Labour party.

[Naushabah Khan (Gillingham and Rainham) (Lab)]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I promised I would not go on for too long, so I am going to sit down—[Interruption.]

[Hon. Members]

More!

[Graham Stuart]

I said I would speak for six minutes and I have now spoken for six minutes, but interestingly I have not talked about the main topic I was going to touch on: oil and gas. I made my point in an earlier intervention, but I appeal to the Government because putting up taxes on oil and gas in the North sea will mean that there will be tens of thousands of job losses, and a loss of engineering and other capacity in this country, which is vital to the transition to net zero. In response to my interaction with the hon. Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) earlier, no one expects the tax take from this sector to go up in the coming years as a result of the measure; the tax take will go down. The rate can be put up to such a level that it means there will be a lower tax take; the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) spoke powerfully about that as well.

The hon. Member for Barking appeared to accept that point, and she seemed to have a belief in the Minister on the Front Bench that they would listen if it turned out that that was a short-sighted move. If it means that we import more oil and gas from abroad—by the way, that almost always has a higher embedded carbon content than domestically produced oil and gas—that does not benefit the environment, it certainly does not benefit all the jobs that we would have in this country, and it loses us tax revenue. It is truly a crazy policy.

I appeal to Labour Members, especially the new Members, on this point. We heard from the distinguished economist the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) earlier, who was retreading his speech for about the fourth time, little realising it was supposed to be focused on these particular amendments—[Interruption.] Anyway, he did it with great good humour. But I would ask him to take his finely honed mind and address these issues. If the oil and gas policy is as crazy as every expert witness says it is, then he and others should suggest that the Government change course. The hon. Member for Barking said that the Government should consider changing course if the policy did not deliver what it was supposed to deliver, so I ask Government Members to support the amendments that we have put down tonight and oppose this ridiculous Bill. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

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

At the heart of the Prime Minister’s plan for change is our mission to grow the economy to put more money in people’s pockets. We are determined to make people better off. We know that investment and growth depend on the essential foundations of economic stability, fiscal responsibility and public services being on a firm footing, but this Government inherited a challenging and unsustainable set of future spending plans based on unfunded commitments that had not been shared with the OBR or the British people.

No responsible Government could have let things carry on as they were. That is why at the autumn Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the Government’s plans to fix the foundations of the economy and deliver change—a plan to protect working people, fix public services, including the NHS, and rebuild Britain. That has meant taking difficult decisions on tax, spending and welfare to repair the public finances and support investment in public services, and the Government have done that while protecting people’s payslips. We have also ensured that the UK is one of the best places in the world to grow a business, with corporation tax capped at 25% and reforms that will support small businesses and the British high street. This Finance Bill represents the next step in delivering on the autumn Budget by legislating for several key manifesto commitments, supporting businesses to invest and implementing reforms to the tax system.

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions during the debate; before I turn to the individual amendments, I will briefly address some of the points that they made. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) for setting out the importance of growth and making people better off, and for his thorough analysis of all the amendments and new clauses to the Bill, which I seem to recall. Perhaps that was in fact my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), who did go through all the new clauses—I thank him for his contribution. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Nesil Caliskan) for being on the Finance Bill Committee, although I note her description that she “sat through” it, rather than thoroughly enjoying the episode.

I also thank Opposition Members for their contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) recognised that even in his view, he could agree with a few points in our Bill, which I welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

I will move on, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will perhaps not go into some of the amendments in as much depth as I had hoped, as I am getting very well attuned to the subtle signals from my hon. Friends.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way before he moves on?

[James Murray]

One more time.

[Graham Stuart]

The Minister is gracious, if not always in the Whips’ best books. Does he expect pensioners who are solely reliant on the state pension to get drawn into tax and the need to produce a tax return? Has he made an assessment of that, and what kinds of numbers would there be?

[James Murray]

As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, in the coming financial year 2025-26 the personal allowance will be above the level of the new state pension, so what he said should not apply when it is people’s sole income. However, there are already cases of individual pensioners who do owe tax; indeed, around two thirds of pensioners pay tax, because they also have private pensions. They pay via pay-as-you-earn or self-assessment.

I will not go into detail about the Government amendments to visual effects relief, because I assume they have the consent of the whole House. However, I will briefly speak to some of the amendments tabled by Opposition Members, as I feel I should address them. I will take together new clauses 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8, which would require the Government to review the number of individuals receiving the full state pension and their income tax liabilities over the next four years, and to publish various impact assessments regarding the impact of changes to the energy profits levy, as well as the impact of the Bill on households, small and medium-sized enterprises, distilleries, wine producers and the hospitality industry.

The Government remain opposed to all of these new clauses, for the same reasons that I gave in Committee. First, the relevant information on those receiving the state pension and their tax liabilities is already published by HMRC, the Department for Work and Pensions and the OBR, and is publicly available.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700138 relating to Inheritance Tax relief for working farms.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. To date, the petition in question has received just shy of 150,000 signatures, which is a mark of the strength of feeling that exists about the proposed policy change. The petitioners argue that

“changing inheritance tax relief for agricultural land will devastate farms nationwide, forcing families to sell land and assets just to stay on their property.”

I put on the record my thanks to the diligent staff of the Petitions Committee who have secured for me, as a representative of the petitioners, meetings with the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tax Policy Associates, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Rural Accountancy Group. As the Member of Parliament for the rural constituency of South Norfolk, which is formed of a patchwork quilt of farms, I am honoured to lead this debate and, in doing so, to give a voice to the farmers in my constituency who have contacted me to share their thoughts about the planned changes to inheritance tax on agricultural businesses.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

In 2012, my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) and I opposed the then Chancellor’s proposal to impose VAT on static caravans, as it was clearly wrong when we looked into it. Will the hon. Gentleman do the right thing, represent his rural constituents and recognise that this ruinous policy will not only destroy family farms across the country but put up food prices and worsen our national energy security? He should do the right thing, challenge his Chancellor and take some of his colleagues with him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, but I have a sense of déjà vu: a month ago, I stood in my place, the Minister sat in his, and we hoped that the Government would listen. They did not listen. I suppose that we should try to be optimistic. That time, apart from the Minister’s aide, there was not a single Labour MP to be found, but they are all here today. Their approaches have varied. I do not mean to rude to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), but in nearly 20 years in Parliament, I have never heard a speech that expressed no opinion on the subject in hand. He gets the vanilla award.

The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) was perhaps tentative and timid, but none the less wanted to hint that it was possible that the perfect selection of policies put forward by Labour might need a little tweak—congratulations on that. However, the award should go to the hon. Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), who was pretty clear that he does not think this policy is right and that it needs to be changed. Praise the Lord that someone on the Government Benches was prepared to come out and say so! That is what they were sent here for—not to do whatever the Prime Minister tells them to.

As I mentioned earlier, when the 2012 Budget proposed the caravan tax, which would have devastated the industry in East Yorkshire—it happens to be based there—and down the coast, because that is where caravans are deployed, we stood against it and opposed it.

[Sam Rushworth]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I am delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman is going to stand up and find his inner rebel.

[Sam Rushworth]

There is absolutely nothing timid about what I am telling the right hon. Gentleman: farmers in my community were massively let down by the previous Government.

[Sam Rushworth]

I do not know why the right hon. Lady keeps saying that. We have not voted on the policy yet. There was a vote against a motion that was put forward by the Opposition. It was a cynical motion that was designed to make us want to vote against it, because it was so ridiculous.

[Graham Stuart]

I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman shrunk inside his shell, and the farmers in his constituency will have heard that.

It is possible to challenge one’s Government. I said to my Whips then that the best service we could do the Government was to prevent them from doing something stupid, harmful and alienating to voters. I hope that Government Members can see that, because the Opposition cannot change this. People outside say to me, “Can we get this changed?” It is actually up to Labour MPs. They have the majority. Democracy is not about having a majority and doing what one likes. Democracy is about listening and doing what the now Prime Minister told the NFU when he said:

“You deserve a Government that listens, that heeds early warnings”.

There are one or two warnings about. Listen, change: if the Government change, four years on, no one will remember the U-turn. Whatever civil servants say—they are always very keen to stick with a policy—if it is wrong, stop doing it. And this is wrong. In the minute and 20 seconds I have left, let me say why it is so wrong. We have touched on the various elements, but I am not sure we have pulled it all together.

We have a really peculiar group of businesspeople in this country; they are called farmers. They take a return on capital—the millions they have invested in their farms—that is typically less than 1%. There is nobody that I am aware of—no business I was ever involved in—that would remotely consider continuing in an industry that paid less than 1%. These farmers take a pittance and get up at 4 o’clock in the morning for the privilege. They look after the animals and it does not matter if they are ill; they cannot carry their employment rights and go, “I’m not well, I shouldn’t have to go out,” because the cows do not care: they have to go out and look after them, and then they get less than 1% return. Those farmers, the most beneficent public-minded businesspeople in the whole country, then provide excellent food at among the lowest prices in Europe. If ever there were a business that we would not want to go and mess with, it is these—I should not say it, because I will make enemies of them.

[David Smith]

I thank the hon. Member for his scoring system, but can he confirm whether he was part of the last Government, which failed to get £300 million of subsidies to farmers out the door?

[Graham Stuart]

For the hon. Gentleman’s political career, as he has been so brave today, I entirely forgive him that piece of whataboutery.

We must understand how remarkable it is that there is a whole group of businesspeople who take practically nothing from their business, work all the hours God gives, and provide us with some of the finest food in the world at among the lowest prices in Europe. Why would we want to mess with that? Not only do they do that, but they brainwash their children from the earliest age so that they carry on doing it. These people are in indentured service to the nation, providing food while making very little profit. They do it willingly and, in fact, love it: it is their life. To go and mess with them out of some stupid, socialist spite is ridiculous and absurd, and Government Members know that—the hon. Member for North Northumberland certainly does, and he should lead his colleagues to tell the Chancellor to change course, just as we did in 2012 when George Osborne got it wrong.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dr Murrison.

I rise to speak up for the 337 signatories to this petition from my Taunton and Wellington constituency. One thing that we should have learned—surely, I hope, the Treasury must have done—is that farms are asset-rich but cash-poor, and that especially applies to smaller family farms. The Treasury’s figure that only 27% of farms will be affected is therefore an underestimate. As the NFU has pointed out, it is more like 75%, because Government figures often leave out the fact that changes are being made to both business property relief and agricultural property relief. That means that more farms will experience an impact, since the maximum allowance applies to both combined.

More importantly, this measure fundamentally misunderstands that the value of a farm is wrapped up in the land and is about not just pounds and pence, but the integrity of that farm. If one starts selling off chunks of that farm piecemeal, time after time, one eliminates the value of that farm as a whole. The Government need to accept the damage that this family farm tax could do.

The Minister might say, “The money can be borrowed—why do they not just borrow the money and pay it off over time?” Ed Hawkins from Cutsey farm in Trull came to see me and explained that if he annualised that payment over a number of years, it would wipe out the very small margin that he depends on to live. We have heard the same thing from other Members. It is not realistic. Robbie Vile from Higher Lillesdon farm in North Curry came to see me with his son, Charlie, who is hoping to go into farming. However, looking at how farming has been treated recently—the delays in the SFI payments, the underspend of a full £358 million of the agricultural budget over the last three years, massive advantage given to Australia and New Zealand, cheap imports after Brexit and now inheritance tax—they ask: why would any young person be encouraged to go into farming in those circumstances?

[Graham Stuart]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be useful for the Minister to say from the Treasury Front Bench what the average profitability is in British farming? It would be useful to have that on the record, because it is in that context that we have to look at this. If we do not see it in context, we just compare farming with other businesses and can easily mislead ourselves as to the reality for farmers across the country.

[Gideon Amos]

I agree; that would be a very useful statistic. If the Minister is not willing to look it up, I hope he might ask the House of Commons Library to do so, because it would certainly reveal the vast number of farms that would be affected by the scale of the tax that is proposed for them.

In short, I have no objection to the taxing of super-large landowners who use farms as a loophole to avoid inheritance tax—in fact, I would support it. But the irony of this policy is that it will drive more land into the hands of those super-large landowners, because every time farmers have to sell off some of their land, it will go to one of those bigger companies. Seeing that land being sold piecemeal time after time will only damage British farming as a whole. Drawing this tax down to some of the smallest family farms in Taunton and Wellington, and across the country, is unjust. It will not raise the money that the Government say it will. It will mean piecemeal disposal of farms up and down the country. The Government really must raise the threshold for this policy or extend the transitional relief. If they do not do that, the policy needs to go and it needs to go now. That is what the Liberal Democrats would do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. Here we are again! As we speak, thousands of farmers are once again rallying outside the gates of this building. Over the past six months, our farmers have repeatedly been told by this Labour Government that their way of life is expendable and that their hard work, their sacrifice and their future can simply be priced up and taken away. Is it any wonder that our farmers have shown up in such vast numbers again today?

Make no mistake: it is not just our farmers who are outside our gates. Across the country, more than 148,000 people have signed the petition because they know, just as Opposition Members do, that the family farm tax is wrong, is vindictive and must be scrapped now. I thank the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) for leading this petitions debate, but I have to say that he did a disservice to the petitioners, who put their faith in him to lead this debate, by not actually forming an opinion. He communicated strong arguments, but he did not form an opinion. He was a mere spokesman and did not use his opportunity in this debate to voice properly their concerns.

What an image for our farming community to take away from this debate! Where on earth is the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs? The shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), is sitting beside me. Where on earth is the farming Minister? He is absent. What message does it send that the Labour party has filled up its Benches but that only five Labour Members spoke, despite having the opportunity to voice their concerns in this three-hour petitions debate, and that all five of them voted against scrapping the family farm tax when we brought the motion to the House? This is probably one of the most important debates we could have on this issue, and yet once again those with responsibility for rural areas and our farmers are missing in action. There are Labour Members who have turned up but have not even contributed to the debate, despite representing large rural constituencies.

Where is this Government, who claim to be on the side of rural Britain? If they had actually visited some of their farming communities, they would know just how damaging to our farming community their choice to implement the family farm tax is. They might have had some of the devastating conversations that I and many Conservative Members, including the shadow Secretary of State, have had. I would like to share some of them.

Just last week, in Northamptonshire, I met George, who has worked on his farm all his life and is nearly in his 80s. Unfortunately, he is extremely ill. He knows from his diagnosis that he does not have long to live, but he is not sure whether he will live beyond 26 April. He knows that if he should pass away before 26 April, his IHT bill will be zero, but if he passes away after 26 April, the tax bill for his family will be well over £1 million—a debt that his family simply cannot sustain. Taking his own life was an option that was put forward to me. These are horrific choices and unthinkable amounts of pressure for any individual or family to be put under, never mind some of the most vulnerable people in our society.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is giving a very powerful speech. It is true that George was given no notice and no ability to plan for this important impact on his life and on everything he has worked for—but is it not worse than that, because he explicitly relied on a promise not to do this? That makes it particularly unforgivable.

[Robbie Moore]

I could not agree more.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I will respond fully to the point made by the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) first. As I was saying before he intervened, the data from HMRC, to which other Members have referred, shows that 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates. It is a similar picture for business property relief, more than 50% of which is claimed by just 4% of estates—that equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief. Given the wider pressures on the public finances, we do not believe that that is fair or sustainable, and we felt it was appropriate to reform how the reliefs operate.

[Graham Stuart]

To follow up on the earlier question that I channelled in the Minister’s direction, will he say something about the average profitability of family farms? That puts this in context.

[James Murray]

Earlier in the debate, we heard that the average return on capital is 0.5%, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that 10% of farms in England have made a return on capital of 10%, so it is perhaps a more complicated picture than the one presented earlier. Similarly, farm business income, which is net profit, shows a wide variation. In designing the reforms, we obviously considered the fact that those who have assets on which they currently claim agricultural or business property relief still need to have generous relief. That is inherent in the design of the reforms that we are proposing: there is full 100% relief for the first £1 million of assets—above other nil-rate bands, spousal transfers and so on—and then effectively an unlimited 50% relief thereafter.

[Graham Stuart]

I thank the Minister for his answer and for telling us about the variation, which I am sure is there, but will he provide the average or median, to give us a sense of the situation for the vast bulk, rather than the top 10%? What does the average or median look like? What is the reality for most farms up and down this country?

[James Murray]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his further intervention. In understanding how the reliefs are reformed, the important point is to focus our conclusions on the data on claims. In understanding how many estates are likely to be affected by the changes, the data that matters is the data on claims. That is why the information that I was setting out around where the bulk of the relief currently goes is based on claims data. In a moment I will come to some other statistics that were referred to in the debate.

Agricultural and Business Property Relief

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (in the Chair)]

I will call Graham Stuart to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of planned changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on small businesses.

It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan, and to see so many colleagues from across the House here today. Perhaps it is not surprising that we have a redoubtable Minister, who picks up the poisoned chalice on so many occasions. He will do so today, no doubt both well informed and with good humour, as he has done previously.

I refer to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a recipient of campaign donations from businesses and farmers across Beverley and Holderness. Given the rural nature of my seat, I will start by focusing on the twin impacts of the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief on family farms, followed by the impact of changes to BPR on family businesses. We have just a half-hour debate, and a colleague asked the good question of why it was so short for something so big. That means I will probably be the sole speaker, but I am happy to take as many interventions as I can, because I know that concern is widespread.

In her autumn Budget, the Chancellor announced a significant change to APR and BPR, set to take effect from April 2026. She is imposing a 20% tax on the value of land and machinery exceeding £1 million. That is known by many of us as a family farm tax. By the Government’s own estimate, it could result in one farm closing in every rural constituency every year.

[Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for securing this debate. I also draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. When a small farm has been in a family for generations, that family knows the local watercourses better than anybody else. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that as those small farms disappear and move towards development, flooding issues may result because the local knowledge that would prevent flooding will be lost?

[Graham Stuart]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. On Friday, I visited Ian and Rebecca at Bygott farm just outside Beverley, which is about 220 acres. Their profits would be wiped out by the expected inheritance tax for 10 full years, with 10 years to pay it. The expected annual payment for 10 years would be greater than their profit last year. They also play that vital role, which my right hon. Friend mentioned, of looking after the watercourses. The villagers nearby do not know what a critical part they play in maintaining those watercourses.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman for bringing this forward. All my neighbours in Northern Ireland are small farmers. Everyone will be impacted, because the threshold of £1 million is too low. The threshold should be between £4 million and £5 million, which would give a chance to retain the family farm. Has the right hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to talk to the National Farmers Union or the Ulster Farmers Union to ascertain their legal opinion, which is against what the Government are introducing?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If the measure was about hitting huge investors, they are the ones least likely to be affected. The richest and most sophisticated will find it easiest to avoid the impact. Small farmers, such as the ones I visited on Friday, will be most seriously affected. It is a bit like the winter fuel payment cut. If the Government took that away from people who had an income of more than £25,000, it would be infinitely less controversial. The point is, it hits people on very low incomes and hurts them the most.

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman also accept that the measure has an inequitable application across the United Kingdom? In some parts, land values are higher than others. In Northern Ireland they are the highest, therefore one will reach the £1 million threshold sooner with less acreage there than elsewhere. Where we have a concentration of family farms, that will have a crippling effect on future generations.

[Graham Stuart]

Once that farmland is lost, it is gone forever. It is certainly gone forever from the families who, generation after generation, have been prepared to invest their all—their time and their money—into an asset which they never seek to realise, but merely use for a very low return on capital employed, in order to feed the nation.

As somebody said to me, of all the groups that one might possibly target, of all the profit-maximising people it could be assumed might have the broad shoulders to pay more, why pick people who sit on a multimillion-pound asset, take a derisory income from it, and get up at four in the morning to feed us? Of all the groups to target, this is the most absurd. I hope the Minister, who has until 2026, can start to realise this.

[Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)]

I met a farmer a couple of weeks ago in my constituency who is 80 years old and has made arrangements for passing his farm on to the next generation. However, the seven-year rule is unlikely to affect someone of that age. Does my right hon. Friend agree that a modest compromise could be made by the Government to allow for those sorts of situations?

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I spoke to another farmer in my constituency and his farm is owned by three people, one of whom is his father—who has a third of it—and who has been in ill health lately, is in his early 80s and is highly unlikely to live for the next seven years. All the planning that they responsibly put into ensuring that that farm continues to contribute to waterways, the environment, and the nation’s food security has been cast aside and turned over by this Government’s ill thought-out plans.

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

In my constituency, many family farms exceed the threshold due to the high value of the land and machinery. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that these changes threaten to push family-run farms into the hands of large corporations and therefore both erode rural communities and jeopardise our domestic food security?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right: that is exactly what they will do. I am sure that it is not the Government’s intent to bolster the big international corporations and hurt the small player who is an embedded part of the community.

So many people I speak to genuinely try and run their farms to be supportive of nature and of local business. Once major corporations are involved, these will not care where they get their supplies from. They will not be focused on that.

[Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this brutal change to inheritance tax—let us call it what it is, a family farm tax—will destroy family farms and farming in the UK as we know it? Does it not make nonsense of Labour’s claim to believe in food security for the UK? We need a U-turn straightaway.

The question I am now being asked by my farmers is: did this policy come about because the Government did not know what they were doing and through a lack of knowledge by the Labour party of the farming community? Or will we look back at this and see it for what it is: theft by the state of land from private owners?

[Graham Stuart]

I will come to that point later in my speech.

When that farmland is gone, it will take with it the livelihoods of families who have devoted generations to feeding our nation and will have a permanent negative impact on the nation’s food security.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Before my right hon. Friend goes on too much further, I wonder whether he agrees that another effect of this is that, at a time when we need to unlock growth and productivity, it will discourage and disincentivise the investment in our family farms that is so badly needed?

[Graham Stuart]

My right hon. Friend is right. That is why I appeal to the Minister: if the Government do not care at all—in fact, if the Government see farmers as some sort of class enemy—it still does not make sense to do this, because it will weaken our food security. Go and talk to farmers—as I do in my area all the time—and it is obvious that their personal commitment to things like flood protection, understanding of the land, and thinking in the long term, is not just words.

People think in the long term when there is no thought in their minds of selling. Why would anyone not put their money back in? Farmers put all their money back in because they are happy to do so, and they have a lifestyle as part of that. All that is put under threat if the investment in a piece of machinery or infrastructure that could help them to green their land will be subject to a 20% tax. Suddenly the economics do not add up and the bank will not want to lend.

[Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know, as all of us in this room do, that in GB we enjoy some of the most competitively priced fresh produce available anywhere in Europe and that is precisely because of the investments in production technology that family farms have made over generations. Is he concerned that at a stroke this Government, myopic about the workings of agriculture, have made them immediately—overnight—stop that investment, and consumers will feel that in food prices?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point that has not been made so far: we have among the lowest food costs in the world. In fact, all my local farmers are forever moaning at me about how outrageous it is that food is so low in price. As I say to them, the system has allowed them to continue farming, providing first-class food at a very low cost to consumers. It is that carefully balanced ecosystem that will be impacted by this juggernaut creation of the Government, which will raise, if it raises anything at all, very little. That is why it is great to have someone as thoughtful, insightful and empathetic as the Minister on the Government Bench, because we have time to change path away from this ridiculous policy.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is making a very clear case. Of course, there is massive agreement in the room. Does he recognise that with the uncertainty about the land use framework and the Government’s interventions and intentions on development of the work that we did on ELMS—the environmental land management scheme—farmers face massive uncertainty? Does he agree that it would be far better if the Government paused, as the NFU is asking, to look at this matter in the round, alongside the other policy decisions that they need to make—there is plenty of time before next spring—and, in particular, to address the issue about the age distribution of farmers? For younger farmers there will be ways of mitigating this matter and for older ones there simply are not. Overall, they lack clarity on what the future looks like, and that is a real concern.

[Graham Stuart]

At the very least, as my right hon. Friend says and as a colleague touched on earlier, tweaks could be made to this policy to stop the most egregious negative impact of it on people who have planned in good faith all their lives for a position and are now in no position whatever to change things. It is not just the elderly—everyone looks for the elderly person in their 80s or 90s to pass on, but I met another constituent whose mother died aged 41. These things happen, sadly, and what does that do to a farm? Is it holding hundreds of thousands of pounds in the bank when there are 200 and something acres?

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

The right hon. Member will possibly be familiar with my constituency—one of the richest farming areas in the UK. The Treasury continues to insist that only about 520 estates a year will claim APR in the way that it is describing, and it has set the threshold at £1 million. Does the right hon. Member agree that the Minister needs to provide clear evidence for this threshold, and is he aware that at the evidence session in December, the NFU claimed that the actual figure, rather than 520, is 2,000 estates involved?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is right. The expert valuers who do this for a living have come out with different numbers, but they are all violently different from the Government’s assumptions. Even on the basis of the Government’s own figures, if I take Beverley and Holderness—as a rural constituency—it would be a farm a year. And of course, everyone is affected. They are all having to spend and bring advisers into the room. They are sitting there, as a small business that might be making less than £25,000 a year, and having to pay £1,000 an hour to get the expertise in the room to advise them on something that, sure, depending on the longevity of family members, may not have an impact for 15, 20 or—hopefully—30 years, but none the less they are spending that money now because of the uncertainty of this policy, which is very ill advised.

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

I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate, which is so important. Just this morning, I was at the meeting on food security, speaking to poultry farmers there, and they said that they are already taking decisions not to invest in new buildings, directly because they are now thinking of how they need to save for an APR bill. Of course, that has a knock-on effect on other businesses that will be the suppliers, and therefore we come into the BPR argument as well. Does he share my concerns that, if farmers cannot invest in their holdings, they will not be as profitable in future? It is a huge cycle—a self-fulfilling prophecy that will mean that more farms will be impacted down the line.

[Graham Stuart]

My hon. Friend is right. I say to the Minister that rather than looking at the issue through a fairness lens or an “attack wealth” lens, it must be in terms of incentives. Incentives are what drives behaviour, and behaviour is what drives wealth creation and security. If we come at it with some sort of A-level politics student’s approach, rather than one grounded in human behaviour and incentive, and get it wrong, we will see reduced investment from farm to farm and business to business.

If someone is not buying that new piece of planting machinery, they will not be investing in the training of their staff or they will not take on that extra employee who would have been brought on, because to justify expenditure they needed to invest in them, pay them more, and bring on more staff. All of that goes into reverse. I hope that as they come face to face with the realities of being responsible for the economy, Ministers will take that onboard and start to have a different philosophical approach in the way they do policy.

[Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)]

Does the right hon. Member share the concerns that my farmers have about their mental health, who are already in an industry where mental health issues are very high? They are concerned about the deadline of April 2026 and what impact that could have on their wellbeing.

[Graham Stuart]

I do. Someone only has to meet farmers to know that farming is already quite a lonely profession, with a high level of suicide anyway and high rates of depression. Combining that with this figure, it sounds hyperbolic to suggest that people will kill themselves ahead of this deadline, but knowing the farmers as I do in my area, I do not find it that hyperbolic. I hope it proves not to be the case, but it is a serious issue to be considered.

The impact of changes to BPR extends beyond farming communities. When asked about the changes, 85% of family businesses surveyed by the Confederation of British Industry said they would reduce investment by an average of 17%, an issue which colleagues are rightly raising. That will stifle long-term growth and harm the broader network of businesses that depend on them. They say that trust takes years to build, seconds to break and forever to repair. As I walked down Whitehall, shoulder to shoulder with farmers, their anger was palpable because they had believed the Prime Minister’s promises yet were betrayed. To Labour’s credit, it won the trust of rural Britain, through every door knocked, leaflet printed and promise made. It went from representing two rural seats in 2019 to 40 today.

The Prime Minister pledged to form a new relationship with farmers based on respect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) questioned where those proud rural Labour MPs are today; they are certainly not here facing the music. As usual, they are leaving the Minister to do it on his own. He asked us to judge his Government on their actions and not their words, so that is what we will do. In November 2023, the current Environment Secretary, in a room full of farmers, looked them straight in the eye and told them

“We have no intention of changing APR.”

By November 2024, that promise meant nothing. Labour waited 14 years to deliver its Budget, and it made a choice not just to change APR, but halve it. One constituent shared their shock as they calculated the impact, realising it would cost their family £300,000. Another constituent, William Hodgson, who runs a 600-acre farm near Withernsea with his mother, faces an inheritance tax bill of £1.5 million, with a post-tax profit of £150,000 a year. That means he would have to dedicate an entire decade of profits just to cover the cost of that tax. It was at that moment that the most valuable currency in politics—trust—was lost.

In February 2024, the Prime Minister told the NFU that it deserves a Government that listens and heeds early warnings. The planned changes to APR are not due until 2026, leaving the Prime Minister with one year, two fiscal events and ample parliamentary sitting days, with many colleagues all too happy to constructively work with him, to come to this House and tell us that he has listened and will change course. The question is whether he has the courage to do so.

It will have been hard to hear all of us and our chants while he was in Rio and we were in Whitehall; farmers at his north London surgeries will be few and far between. However, I hope he will listen to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), on his own side, who spoke bravely against the policy during the debate in the Chamber last month.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I had better make some progress. The hon. Member for Penrith and Solway may have been scolded behind closed doors for doing that, but he will have regained the trust of voters who put their trust in him. As devastating as the proposed changes to APR and BPR could be on our farmers, the impact of the changes on family-owned businesses more widely could be even greater, and perhaps that deserves more attention.

A recent report by Adriana Curca at the CBI laid bare the potential fallout. Far from raising £1.4 billion, as forecast by the Treasury, the Chancellor can expect a £1.2 billion decrease in tax revenue from family-owned businesses. Instead of helping the Government to fulfil their pledge to be pro-business and pro-worker, it could lead to the loss of more than 125,000 jobs over the next four years.

Rachel from accounts obviously never got a new abacus for Christmas. Maple Garage, Beverley Travel, Beverley Camera Centre, Oh My Dog—great place—Flowerstyle, Vivienne Rose Wallpaper and Interiors, the Beverley Card Company, Islay Bloom, the Monkey Tree Café, Trent Galleries, Hull Aero Club—those are all businesses that I have spoken to since the Budget. The overwhelming sentiment was exactly the same, regardless of the type of business: disappointment in a Government who do not understand business. None of the Cabinet has ever run one, and it shows.

When the Prime Minister promised that wealth creation would be his party’s No. 1 priority—do hon. Members remember that?—more than 120 business leaders believed him, from the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, to Andrew Higginson, the chair of JD Sports. The Prime Minister convinced them that he had a plan to kick-start our economy. Now, six months into the reality of a Labour Government, they are lacing up their trainers and running for the hills.

It does not have to be that way. Instead of tinkering with who is and who is not eligible for inheritance tax relief, we could consider following Sweden’s example, where, having tried heavy inheritance tax charges—

[Mr Angus MacDonald (Inverness, Skye and West Ross-shire) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will have to press on. Sweden ended up with even, I think, the communists voting to abolish it entirely. Since Sweden scrapped inheritance tax in 2004, entrepreneurship has flourished. Some 8,000 wealthy individuals moved their assets back to the country. Its tax revenues increased by £19.5 billion in a decade.

The planned changes to APR and BPR hurt everyone and help no one. Scrapping inheritance tax may not be a silver bullet, but the evidence suggests it is a policy worth examining.

I return to the saying that trust takes forever to repair. The Prime Minister will not take my word for it, but he should listen to his voters, and recent polls show that 66% of voters believe that Labour does not respect rural communities, and 77% do not trust Labour to manage the economy effectively, or remain unconvinced.

Newer MPs may grandstand and say that it will all blow over—although their appetite to do so seems to be diminishing by the day—and that by 2029, it will be a bad memory for farmers and entrepreneurs. Perhaps they could ask some of their colleagues in the Liberal Democrats how that story ends. After all, in 2010, it took them less than six months to break their promise to students not to raise tuition fees, and it still came up in last summer’s TV debates. Farmers and businessmen, like students, have long memories.

I am a firm believer that we reap what we sow. In the past six months, the Government have sown a dangerous thing—seeds of doubt, and an idea that they cannot be trusted. I had better let the Minister have a short period to respond. However, on behalf of colleagues right across this side of the House—and I think, by their absence, quite a number of colleagues on that side of the House—we ask the Minister, who is a thoughtful and decent man, to go back to the Chancellor and the Prime Minister, and persuade them to change course.

Public Finances: Borrowing Costs

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Jones]

It is absolutely right that the Labour Government are bringing fiscal and economic stability back to this country, because we know that when you play fast and loose with the nation’s finances, you play fast and loose with family finances. That is what voters in every constituency experienced when the Conservatives were last in government. They will not experience that under this Labour Government.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

We are looking at higher interest rates, lower growth and a higher cost of borrowing to the Government; as my hon. and right hon. Friends have said, we are grateful to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury for being so honest with the House. It is clear that if he sticks to his word, there will not be any more borrowing, or any more tax rises. Given the numbers, that leaves only one option: cuts in public services. I wonder whether his colleagues behind him on the Government Benches realise that reality. What word other than “austerity” will he use to describe it?

[Darren Jones]

As I have said, it seems that the Conservative party is proud of its record on austerity. We do not support austerity, which was blind ideological cuts to public services—3% cuts—irrespective of the outcome for the people who rely on public services. The Chancellor increased investment in public services at the Budget in the autumn, and we will continue to increase investment in them, because we need to get them back on their feet, and they are an important foundation for economic growth. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman recognises my statements, and says that they are honest, because of course they are. I look forward to coming back to the House in future months and years to show him the progress that the Government are making.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)]

On the economy, as with so much else, does my right hon. Friend agree that Conservative Members should sip from the elixir of personal responsibility and that the two words we most need to hear from them are, “We apologise”?

[Graham Stuart]

That’s not a question.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Stuart, I need no advice from you. I think you are on the Panel of Chairs, and I need to see some better behaviour if you are going to stay on it.