Finance Bill

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Tuesday 10th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

At the Budget in October, the Chancellor set out the decisions that we are taking to restore economic stability, put the public finances on a firm footing, and embed fiscal responsibility in the work of Government. Having wiped the slate clean of the mess we inherited, our Government can now focus on boosting the public and private investment that is essential for sustainable long-term growth. It is through sustainable economic growth across the UK that we will create wealth and provide security, making people across the country better off.

That goal of raising living standards in every part of the UK so that working people have more money in their pocket is at the heart of the Government’s plan for change that the Prime Minister set out last week. That plan also set out the Government’s commitment to securing home-grown energy, and to protecting bill payers by putting us on track to secure at least 95% clean power by 2030. Making the transition to home-grown energy has required us to take immediate action to unblock investment, including deciding to reverse the de facto ban on onshore wind. The Government have their part to play, alongside the private sector, in making sure that investment happens on the scale and at the pace that we need. That is why the clauses that we are debating are so important—they are a key mechanism for raising the funding that is needed for that investment to be delivered.

We are taking a responsible approach that recognises the role of businesses and their employees in the energy industries of today and tomorrow. Since we formed a Government, my colleagues and I have been working closely with the sector affected by the energy profits levy to make sure that the transition is managed in a way that supports jobs in existing and future industries. Our approach recognises that oil and gas will have a role to play in the energy mix for many years to come, during the transition, and it balances that with ensuring that oil and gas help to raise the revenue that we need to drive investment towards the energy transition. Our legislation delivers that approach, and I welcome the chance to set out the details of how it does so.

The clauses that we are debating concern the energy profits levy, a temporary additional tax on profits from oil and gas exploration and production in the UK and on the UK continental shelf. The levy was introduced by the previous Government in response to the extraordinary profits being made by oil and gas companies—and, it is fair to say, in response to substantial political pressure from Labour Members.

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

Does the Minister believe that oil and gas companies are still making extraordinary profits?

[James Murray]

I believe that it is fair that the oil and gas industry makes a reasonable contribution to the energy transition. We need to ensure that during the transition from oil and gas, which will play a key role in our energy mix for years to come, the industry contributes to the new, clean energy of the future. The way to have a responsible, managed transition is to work with the industry and make sure that it makes a fair contribution, but to not shy away from making that transition at the scale and pace needed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Daisy Cooper]

At the heart of the debate is a stark injustice, understood by every man, woman and child on the streets of Great Britain. In the last few years, oil and gas giants have made eye-watering profits—in many cases, they are profits that they did not expect to make—and they have made them off the back of Putin’s brutal invasion of Ukraine and global supply chain issues that caused energy prices to soar. At the same time, people have seen their living standards drop and their energy prices soar. In too many cases, people have had to choose between heating and eating.

We Liberal Democrats were the first party to call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits back in October 2021, but it was not until May 2022 that the previous Government eventually introduced the energy profits levy. It was half-hearted and woefully late. If it had been brought in when we had called for it, there would have been additional revenue to reduce people’s energy bills and launch an emergency home insulation scheme, reducing energy consumption, which would have been good for the climate, and reducing people’s bills, which would have been good for their pockets.

The previous Government effectively let oil and gas giants off the hook, by initially setting the energy price levy at just 25% and putting in place a massive loophole in the form of the investment allowance. That allowed the oil and gas giants to get away with vast sums at taxpayers’ expense, with the excuse of investments that they would have made anyway. In essence, the Conservatives gave them tax relief on polluting activity when they should have been doing everything to raise funds to reduce people’s bills and urgently insulate homes.

Thanks to the investment allowance—the big loophole—in 2022, Shell admitted that it had paid zero windfall tax despite making the largest global profit in its 115-year history: a profit of £31 billion. As some colleagues in the Committee have referred to, energy prices have come down since those record levels of 2022, but the oil and gas producers have still seen huge profits. In 2023, Shell saw its profit come down from £31 billion, but it still made £22.3 billion.

[Harriet Cross]

How much of that profit was made in the UK versus globally?

[Daisy Cooper]

To be honest, I do not know what the distinction is between global profits and UK profits. The point is that the levy is put on UK profits made out of UK operations. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree that when her constituents cannot afford to put their heating on, she should not miss the opportunity to raise taxes from the big oil and gas companies.

As I said, Shell made a profit of £22.3 billion in 2023, and BP saw profit of £11 billion, its second highest in a decade. I hope the Committee agrees that where those profits are made on UK operations, they should pay their fair share. We are glad that the current Government have listened to calls from Liberal Democrats and others and finally scrapped the unfair investment allowance loophole, but we would like the Minister to give the Committee some clarity on how much money will be raised, particularly through the abolition of the carve-out. By extension, we would be able to see how much money could have been raised under the previous Government but was gifted to the large gas giants. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may not like it, but their constituents are choosing between heating and eating. People should know just how much money could have been raised and how much will now be raised through this measure.

--- Later in debate ---

Our constituents understand the stark injustice that the amendment will address. I hope the Minister will accept it, be transparent and show just how much money it will raise to help put public services back on their feet.

[Harriet Cross]

I will speak to clauses 15 to 18 briefly, but mainly to new clause 3 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride). It would require the Chancellor to publish within three months a review of the expected changes introduced by the Bill on employment, capital expenditure, production, demand and the economy. It is inherently sensible, and considers the importance of the oil and gas sector to regional and national employment and economic growth in the UK.

On the need to review the impact on employment, 82% of direct jobs in the oil and gas sector are located in Scotland. My Gordon and Buchan constituency is at the heart of that. New clause 3 would review the impact of the changes to employment across the country, as it is not just direct jobs that are on the line but supply chain and other indirect jobs. Of those, 90,000 are in Scotland and 200,00 are across the UK.

[Dave Doogan]

The hon. Member highlights the economic consequences of this heading south on jobs in Scotland. Is she surprised and disappointed, as I am, that not a single Scottish Labour MP has turned up to take part in this vital debate?

[Harriet Cross]

We were saying a moment ago how extraordinary it is that they are not here to stand up for their main industry. That shows how much they value or care about jobs across Scotland.

We are seeing warning signs already of the impact of these measures. Just a week after the Budget, Apache confirmed that it would cease operations in the North sea, saying:

“The onerous financial impact of the EPL, combined with the substantial investment that will be necessary to comply with regulatory requirements, makes production of hydrocarbons beyond 2029 uneconomic.”

According to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, 100,000 jobs may be at risk across the UK because of the changes. Offshore Energies UK says that 35,000 jobs directly related to projects that may not now go ahead are at risk. New clause 3, which would allow the Government the opportunity to assess and account for the impact of the Bill’s changes on jobs relating to the oil and gas sector, the supply chain and the wider economy, should be welcomed across the Committee.

[Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)]

On the impact that increased tax on the industry will have on jobs, was my hon. Friend as disappointed as I was to hear the Liberal Democrats talking only about how much cash can be raised from an industry, without asking how many jobs would be affected across Scotland and the UK, or about the impact on the economy as a whole?

[Harriet Cross]

Absolutely; sometimes there is a complete disconnect in this place between how much we can tax and squeeze something dry and what that does to investment. These companies, especially the global ones, do not have to invest in the UK—they can invest across the world. They are choosing to invest here at the moment, and therefore we get jobs, opportunities and employment. That investment can go abroad, and if it does, it will take jobs with it, to the detriment of all of us, but particularly us in north-east Scotland.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Does the hon. Lady not recognise that we are in a transition period, which we need in order to get to net zero? Of course, we need to protect jobs, but the transition to net zero is essential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

I recognise that, which is why it is so important that we protect the jobs and the investment. The companies in our supply chain have the skills and expertise that will drive the transition, as will the investment that comes in, and that is why we need to keep them.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Lady makes a good point about the mobility of investment in the oil and gas industry. Is it not ironic that, since we will need oil and gas, if we tax companies on production in the United Kingdom, they will simply produce elsewhere, other Governments will get the revenue from the tax on that production and we will pay more for imports?

[Harriet Cross]

Exactly. There must be a balance between production and demand—I will come to demand later. There is no point reducing our domestic production while our demand stays the same, because we will only fill the gap with oil and gas from abroad, which is produced with a higher carbon intensity in poorer working environments, where overseas jobs and investment will take precedence over investment at home. It makes no sense that while we are using oil and gas—the Minister himself confirmed that we will be for a while—we do not prioritise taking it from our own North sea domestic basins.

New clause 3 also asks for a review on capital expenditure and investment in the UK. In Scotland alone, oil and gas contributed £19 billion of gross standard volume. In the UK, it contributed £27 billion. A 2022 report by Experian showed that for every £1 million of investment by the oil and gas industry, 14 jobs and £2.1 million of GVA are added. This industry is blatantly a net benefit to the UK and the Exchequer, and one in which we should encourage investment and capital expenditure, not an environment where the returns do not justify the risk of investment.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) said, the OBR’s own figures show that capital expenditure will fall by 26%, and therefore production of oil by 6.3% and gas by 9.2%, because of these changes. We must ask, can the UK afford this? Maybe those were the parameters that the Exchequer and the Treasury are looking for, if they see them as allowable. But if that is the case, what assessment has been made of the impact on the economy and jobs across the UK?

The OEUK has put the projected drop in production down to a rapid decline due to underinvestment over the decade. Under new clause 3, we can assess the impact of the changes to the EPL and head this off to begin with because, as I said, it is important that while we have demand, we have production. It has been confirmed that we will need oil and gas in the UK for years to come, but through the changes to the EPL in the Bill, in particular clauses 15 and 16, which increase the EPL by 3% and remove the investment allowances, the Government are choosing to make our homegrown domestic energy sector so uncompetitive that current investment falls away and future investment is no longer on the cards.

We cannot afford to lose investment because, as I said, it will drive the transition. It is so important that it is protected now, to help us bring the transition forward quickly and efficiently into the future. Clauses 15 to 18 were introduced without adequate consultation on the impact assessment. New clause 3 simply asks for proper scrutiny of their impact. If the Government are confident in their approach, why resist a responsible request for transparency? My Gordon and Buchan constituents, and people in Scotland working in the oil and gas sector and across the UK, deserve to understand how these changes will impact their livelihoods.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Before I call Dave Doogan, I remind Members that if they wish to speak, they need to be bobbing consistently—I cannot read people’s minds to put together a speaking list.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wera Hobhouse]

I rise to speak briefly in support of new clause 2. I welcome the Government finally scrapping the unfair investment allowance loophole for the oil and gas giants, which the Liberal Democrats have advocated for and called for since the previous Government introduced the levy—too late, and half-heartedly—in May 2022. Oil and gas companies made eye-watering profits off the back of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and global supply chain problems that caused energy prices to soar. While the oil and gas giants saw record profits, my constituents in Bath and others across the country faced a cost of living crisis.

The previous Government have a lot to answer for. They sat and watched as the oil and gas giants lined their pockets off the back of people struggling with their bills. It did not have to be that way. [Interruption.] Conservative Members do not want to hear it, but it did not have to be that way. Those were the political choices the previous Government made.

The measures announced by the Government in this Bill are welcome, in particular the removal of the 29% investment allowance except for investments on decarbonisation. This has been a Liberal Democrat policy, and I am pleased the Government have picked up on it and that it will now become a reality.

We Liberal Democrats were the first to call for a tax on oil and gas windfall profits back in October 2021. While the previous Government did eventually introduce the energy profits levy, they did so half-heartedly and woefully late in May 2022. It matters that we repeat that again and again: it is something that the previous Government failed to do. That Government let the oil and gas giants off the hook by putting in place a massive loophole in the form of the investment allowance. It was thanks to that allowance that in 2022, Shell admitted it had paid zero windfall tax, despite making the largest global profits in its 150-year history of £31 billion. That cannot be right while our constituents have been struggling to pay their bills.

My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) has tabled new clause 2, which would require the Government, as we have already heard, to produce a report about the fiscal impact of the Bill’s changes to the EPL and relief for investment expenditure. We cannot lose sight of the bigger picture. To avoid a repeat of the energy crisis, we must end our reliance on oil and gas. Investing in renewables would mean cheaper energy across the country. We would no longer be reliant on dictators such as Vladimir Putin who use natural gas as a weapon. As well as being more affordable, renewables are the best route to energy security. It is very disappointing to hear Conservative Members advocate for business as usual. We need to transition away from oil and gas.

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. At what point does she believe we will be fully reliant on renewables?

[Wera Hobhouse]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is absolutely by putting in place the measures for transition that we will meet net zero. If we continue with business as usual and continue to listen to people who ultimately do not understand that unless we get to net zero our whole economy will suffer, then people will suffer. We will also have big, big problems with issues such as huge migration if climate change can rule unchallenged. This is why the Liberal Democrats believe the transition to net zero is important and why we need to put measures in place to make that happen. It is disappointing that the Conservatives, as the previous Government and now the Opposition, still do not understand how urgently we require climate action.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the hon. Member for giving way. She says it is clear who is on the side of working people versus the companies. My constituents are the people working in the oil and gas sector. They are the ones most at risk of losing their jobs if the changes brought in through the EPL go wrong. I am on the side of working people, and I am on the side of my constituents. No matter what MPs across the House say, I will always fight for my working people in Gordon and Buchan who just happen to be working people in the oil and gas sector.

[Yuan Yang]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and, at this point, refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my support from the unionised voices of those who work in the sector to which she referred. I commend the Government’s green prosperity plan to initiate a skills transition, and provide funding for it, so that those workers can profit from the industries of the future rather than the industries of the present and the past.

As the Minister said, the energy profits levy will raise £2.3 billion over the current Parliament, which will go towards the funding of, for instance, Great British Energy. GB Energy, whose headquarters are in Aberdeen, will bring innovation in green technologies not only to Scotland but to the whole of the UK. I will forgive, for a moment, the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) for perhaps not recognising my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker)—I know that an awful lot of new Scottish Members were elected in the last general election, and it must be difficult to learn all their faces. I ask the hon. Member to reflect on the possible reasons for the election of a record number of Scottish Labour Members while he sets about learning their names and faces.

The Government’s auction of 130 wind, solar and tidal energy projects in the latest round of the contracts for difference scheme points the way to the future. It points the way to the generation of 95% of the UK’s energy through green and decarbonised energy by 2030; to a transition that everyone in this Committee, and certainly everyone on the Government Benches, is looking forward to seeing in the next 10 years; and to the delivery of the local power plan, which will support local energy projects in communities such as mine. I welcome the funding of local projects such as Reading Hydro, which takes hydroelectric energy from the Thames, and the work of Reading Community Energy Society, which generates solar energy on the rooftops of the University of Reading and rooftops across my constituency. I look forward to all those projects and to the projects of the future, which is why I commend the measures that we are discussing today.

Farming and Inheritance Tax

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress.

I just set out some statistics that show how this tax relief is very concentrated in a small number of claims. In the context of the dire fiscal situation we inherited and the critical need to fix the public finances and get public services back on their feet, it cannot be right to maintain such a significant level of relief for a very small number of claimants. That is why, from 6 April 2026, the full 100% relief from inheritance tax will be restricted to the first £1 million of combined agricultural and business property. Above that amount, there will be an unlimited 50% relief, so inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%.

The new system, it should be noted, remains more generous than in the past. As I mentioned, the rate of relief prior to 1992 was a maximum of 50% on all agricultural and business assets, including the first £1 million. The reliefs we are providing will be on top of all the other exemptions and nil-rate bands that people can access for inheritance tax. Taken in combination, this means that a couple with farmland will typically be able to pass on up to £3 million-worth of assets to their descendants without paying any inheritance tax.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way. The CAAV calls the £3 million figure “unrealistic” and “unreasonable”. Does he not agree?

[James Murray]

The £3 million figure is what a typical couple could expect to pass on to their direct descendants using the various nil-rate bands and inheritance tax reliefs. I would advise any specific family to get advice from an accountant or financial adviser. In terms of the scale of reliefs, when we combine the inheritance tax relief to agricultural and business property relief, along with the nil-rate bands, nil-rate residence bands and the transferability between spouses, that is how we come to the figure of £3 million.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I am going to make some progress. I have given way many times already.

Looking at the HMRC data, which relates to estates making claims for agricultural and business property relief, is the correct way to understand inheritance tax liabilities. That data shows that our reforms are expected to result in up to 520 estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, paying some more inheritance tax in 2026-27. Let me put that in context. It means that nearly three quarters of estates claiming agricultural property relief, including those that also claim business property relief, will not pay any more tax as a result of these measures.

As this change is introduced, we expect people to respond in a number of ways to reduce their inheritance tax liabilities, and the costings by the Office for Budget Responsibility assume that that will be the case. People may change ownership structures, plan for their succession differently, and make greater use of gifting provisions and insurance.

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the Minister for giving way; he is being generous. He has mentioned claims for agricultural property relief and business property relief, but what about claims for business property relief alone? Have they been included in his figures?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. As we know, any farmer who is renting out land or farming it themselves will typically have an estate that includes an element that is eligible for agricultural property relief. The figures I set out include those who claim for business property relief as well, and those figures are set out in the Chancellor’s letter to the Treasury Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jon Pearce]

Sorry, I will not give way at this stage.

This debate has, however, shone an important light on one issue, which I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for raising: the fact that our farmers are working day in, day out, for very little profit. The question is how we support them to be profitable again. Energy bills are one of the biggest costs farming businesses face. This Government will help bring down those costs through GB Energy and by introducing grid reform to allow farmers to plug renewables into the national grid. We must protect them from being undercut by foreign imports.

[Harriet Cross]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jon Pearce]

I am sorry, but I will not.

We must create a greater marketplace for farming businesses by using the Government’s purchasing power to ensure that 50% of the food bought for our hospitals, prisons and army bases is produced by local farmers.

Here is the most important point: we have to provide farming businesses with economic stability. The Leader of the Opposition has already failed to learn the lessons of the Liz Truss Budget, with £6.7 billion of unfunded tax cuts already announced in a matter of weeks. The Opposition need to tell us how they are going to pay for that. What are they going to cut? Are they going to cut the farming budget—are we going to lose the £5 billion from the farming budget?—or are they going to borrow and put us right back in the position we were in with Liz Truss, with interest rates rising and farms going out of business? I will not be voting for the Opposition motion; I will be supporting farmers in my constituency and providing the economic stability they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Joe Morris]

They absolutely do; my hon. Friend is right. What people—not just farmers—speak to me about is the need for that growing, stable economy. They are infuriated with the Conservative party for pretending to jump on a bandwagon after taking farmers for granted for 14 years while in government.

[Harriet Cross]

Before the Budget, the hon. Member will remember attending a Westminster Hall debate that I organised specifically on agricultural property relief and business property relief. Will he agree that the Conservatives have not jumped on that since the Budget? We have been speaking about it for a very long time.

[Joe Morris]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. She and I must have a slightly different view of a very long time. A few weeks ago is not a very long time for me. I am talking about years in which local farming communities were ignored.

The botched Brexit deal that the Conservative party secured did not do any farmer any favours. Labour is the only party that is genuinely serious about countryside renewal. We cannot pack communities across Northumberland in aspic and pretend that they do not need houses or services. That is why the Conservatives lost. That is why I am here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy MacNae]

It is amazing; one of my colleagues talked about “the green fields opposite” in reference to the empty Conservative Benches.

Given that background, it is no surprise that farmers are angry, worried and feeling vulnerable. I associate myself with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour), who called for calm and sense in the debate. Emotive language, designed to sow fear and cause concern is irresponsible at the very least, so let us try to keep to the facts and keep things calm and reasonable.

The focus of Conservative Members seems to be family farms, but the phrase “family farm tax” immediately creates a sense of fear and targeting, which is completely wrong. With some sensible tax planning, £3 million of assets can be exempt. Many speeches have glanced over the importance of gifting rights. Let us take the scenario of a family farm, in its truest sense, that is to be passed between generations. Surely, gifting rights are a massive opportunity to avoid all inheritance tax and remove the sense of fear that Conservative Members are trying to create. Most of the rest of the country has to do that simple estate planning by default.

[Harriet Cross]

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, reservation of benefits applies when an asset that is still being used is passed on under the seven-year rule. Is he suggesting that a farmer who has been on their farm for their whole life should move out of their farmhouse, get off the land and pay market rate rent? Where will they get that money from, given that, as we know, farm profits are so small?

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend’s constituents in Thurrock are right to be angry about the waste and corruption that happened under the previous Government. That money belongs to the British people and in our public services, not in the pockets of fraudsters taking advantage of a national emergency. Tom Hayhoe will leave no stone unturned in investigating the carnival of fraud that the previous Government presided over, including in PPE contracts, where they recommended any attempts to reclaim that money be abandoned. Letting huge sums of taxpayers’ money be wasted would be egregious and I will not tolerate that.

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

The Treasury consistently insists that only 500 farms a year will be impacted by the family farm tax. However, the Central Association for Agricultural Valuers calculates that the real number will be five times higher and will include many farms in my Gordon and Buchan constituency. Who is right: the Treasury or the experts?

[Rachel Reeves]

We have published the detail of how that money is raised, but the numbers from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are very clear: only a quarter of estates will pay any additional tax. At the moment, the vast majority of agricultural property relief is enjoyed by a very small number of very large and very expensive estates. That is not affordable, and it will not continue.

Finance Bill

Harriet Cross Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 27th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

We know that other countries tax in different ways. Norway has a high headline rate, although it has a different set of structures of allowances and so on. It is important for us that we calibrate the headline rate and the allowances in the right way. That is why we have taken the measured decision to increase the rate as I described, to remove the investment allowance but at the same time to retain the 100% first-year allowances and the level of relief available for decarbonisation investment.

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

Does the Minister think that that is the right balance, given that Offshore Energies UK suggests that the changes will cost £12 billion in tax revenues?

[James Murray]

I am absolutely confident, through all my engagement with OEUK and many firms that work in the oil and gas sector, that our approach strikes the right balance, as needed in our economy. It recognises that oil and gas producers will have a role in the energy mix for years to come, while also being clear that it is crucial we raise money for the energy transition. The energy profits levy seeks to achieve that by providing the money for that transition while also supporting jobs and investment in the sector, as exists at the moment.

Fifthly, the Bill delivers on our manifesto commitment around carried interest by increasing to 32% the capital gains tax rates that apply as an interim measure from 6 April next year, ahead of reforming carried interest more fully in a future Finance Bill. The reforms, which will have effect from April 2026, will ensure that the reward is taxed in line with economic characteristics. They put the tax treatment of carried interest on a fairer and more stable footing for the long term, while preserving the UK’s competitive position as a global asset management hub.

As the Chancellor set out both in July and again at the Budget, the fiscal situation we inherited was far worse than we had expected. We know that the previous Government left us with a £22 billion black hole and so we have had to take tough decisions to fix the public finances and get public services back on their feet. Some of those decisions are outside the scope of this Finance Bill and will be debated during the passage of other Bills. However, this Bill includes a number of those decisions, which we have sought to take in as fair a way as possible.

The Bill makes changes to the main rates of capital gains tax by increasing them to 18% and 24% from 30 October 2024. That decision will raise revenue while ensuring that the UK tax system remains internationally competitive. We are supporting businesses through that transition by maintaining business asset disposal relief, with its million-pound lifetime limit, and by phasing in the increase to that relief’s CGT rate, in line with the changes to investors’ relief, to 14% in April 2025 and then to 18% in April 2026.

The Bill maintains inheritance tax thresholds at their current levels for a further two years to 5 April 2030. It also legislates for air passenger duty rates for 2025-26 and for those announced in the Budget for 2026-27. From 2026-27, all rates of air passenger duty will be adjusted to partially account for previous high inflation, and that change will help maintain the value of air passenger duty rates in real terms.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this very important debate as we move to put the measures announced at the Budget on the statute book but, first, I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett) on a superb maiden speech, demonstrating the commitment and expertise that we are lucky to have on the Government Benches, and the House is lucky to have as a whole.

I suspect that this was not the Budget that my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) envisaged as her first as Chancellor, but it was the one that was needed once the economic inheritance received by this Government became fully understood. I want to touch on the very difficult financial situation that this Government have inherited, and what difference the measures announced in the Budget will make to residents living in my constituency.

We should be clear about what the inheritance from the Conservative party was: an economy that, over the past 14 years, has seen productivity and wages flatlining, leaving British families significantly poorer than those in France and Germany; and a country exposed to fossil fuel markets, which led directly to the worst cost of living and energy bills crises in generations. Whatever the Conservatives may like to say to wriggle out of that inestimable fact, they left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances, with no plan to fix it and—this is the worst part—unfeasible departmental spending targets stretching into future years.

Our response of capital gains tax rises, air passenger duty and agricultural property relief undoubtedly falls on those with the broadest shoulders who are most able to bear those increases.

[Harriet Cross]

May I clarify whether the hon. Member believes that the farmers making on average less than £45,000 year, and the 25% making less than £20,000 a year, are those with the broadest shoulders?

[Jim Dickson]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. We are very clear: the numbers from HMRC show that very few of the sorts of farms that she is referring to will be affected. Actually, it said everything to me that the person leading the march last week had boasted that he had spent £4.25 million on a farm in order to avoid inheritance tax.

This was a Budget to reset our finances after years of chaos, with difficult but necessary decisions—decisions we have not dodged, unlike the previous Government. This Labour Government were elected to fix the foundations of our economy and to begin to rebuild the public services that people across our country—including my residents in Dartford, whom I am privileged to represent in this place—really need. The measures in the Bill will rebalance the tax system, protecting working people and raising the crucial revenue so desperately needed for our public services at a time when their performance is unfortunately at a historic low.

What does this Budget mean for people living in my constituency, in Dartford, Swanscombe, Greenhithe and Ebbsfleet? People living across my constituency rely on their excellent district general hospital at Darent Valley, which is full of brilliant, hard-working staff who do their absolute best; however, after 14 years of a Conservative Government, capacity in the hospital has just not kept up with need. Dartford borough was the second fastest growing local authority area in the period covered by the last census, thanks largely to the development of Ebbsfleet Garden City, but investment in services has not kept up with the needs of a growing population. The more than £25 billion announced in the Budget over two years for our health service will cut waiting times, thanks to 40,000 extra elective appointments each week and the capacity for more than 30,000 additional procedures.

Thanks to the new homes in Ebbsfleet and across Dartford, we are also becoming a much younger constituency, as younger couples settle in our community and start families. We warmly welcome these new residents, and I am confident they will welcome the Chancellor’s decision to increase the core schools budget by more than £2 billion a year, meaning the recruitment of 6,500 teachers, and the additional £1 billion investment to address the broken special educational needs system in Dartford and across our country. If Conservative Members disapprove of the revenue-raising measures in the Budget, it really is incumbent on them to say which bit of that extra investment they would cut. I am afraid we are back to magic money tree economics—we heard that very clearly from the shadow Chancellor. All these measures form part of our manifesto commitment to break down the barriers to opportunity, of which sadly far too many remain.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly for the long-term prospects of our country, I hope the whole House will support the Government’s strong focus on boosting public investment by more than £100 billion over the next five years. This is an area where we have been sadly lacking when compared with our international competitors. The announcement has been further enhanced by the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech, which included proposals to unlock the power of our pension funds to invest in our country.

Against that background, it would be remiss of me not to mention a project that hon. Members across the Chamber might remember me describing in previous contributions as shovel-ready. The proposed new lower Thames crossing is crucial to unlocking the growth that the new Government are seeking, both in the south-east and beyond, and could be started very quickly, with much of the preparatory work already having been undertaken. It would create jobs and unlock investment across the Thames estuary, addressing the largest traffic bottleneck in the UK, and allow freight to move much more easily from ports in the south-east to destinations across the country.

I will end as I began. I recognise that these are difficult decisions and that they will not be welcomed by all; however, we must not duck the tough choices needed to restore the foundations of economic stability in our country and our public services.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

On the topic of the Scotch whisky industry, does the hon. Member agree that increasing the levy by 3.65%, so that a bottle of whisky now has £12 of tax added before it is even out of the door, is another attack on one of Scotland’s main industries?

[Dave Doogan]

I could not agree more with the hon. Member. That is absolutely right, and I am going to touch on that topic a little later.

We see in clause 75 that the rates of landfill tax are going up by 25%. I wonder what discussions Government Ministers have had with local authorities on the impact of this increase. It would be just like this Government to not have put two and two together and realised that it will be a significant upward pressure on costs for councils.

Clause 78 deals with high-sugar drinks. A public health emergency exists in this country—in this state—and the Government are proposing to increase the tax on high-sugar drinks from 24p per litre to £2.59 per 10 litres. That is scarcely an increase at all. A tax of 24p per litre is going up to 25.9p per litre, an increase of 1.9p per litre. We do not sell sugary drinks in litres, we sell them in 330 ml cans, so that is an increase of 0.6p per can. Are the Government kidding? It is a public health emergency—the clue is in the title. Have they got no ambition at all?

This Bill, and the Budget that led up to it, will impose billions of pounds of tax rises and cuts that will hit working Scots in the pocket. We see our old folk freezing in their houses as a result of this Bill and the Budget that underpins it. As a result of the Bill, young people will be chasing fewer and fewer jobs with lower and lower wages. The CBI said this week that the tax rises in the Budget had sent businesses into “crisis containment” and “damage control”, because this Chancellor’s £40 billion raid on businesses is the single biggest tax increase since Norman Lamont’s in 1993. The Chancellor’s decisions hinge on 2% departmental efficiencies that will never ever be realised—we know this because it has never ever been done—so further cuts are coming down on top of these taxes.

This is pure fiscal poison for communities and businesses across these islands. The Government are inflicting the same pain on the Northern hotel in Brechin, Perthshire Timber and Montrose port as they are inflicting on Nissan and Tesco. I am not implying that it is fine for big business and bad for small business; this is a “one size fits nobody” Finance Bill, and the Budget that goes along with it is the same. The clawback that they are applying to the devolved nations, which the Exchequer Secretary would not speak about earlier, does not come close to meeting the cost of the national insurance increase. There is £300 million of compensation for the Scottish Government, who are facing a £750 million exposure, and that is the nature of what this Government are doing. What of the reward for this fiscal pain? Lower growth in the economy, lower profits, increased debt, lower investment, lower wages, falling output, capital flight and the risk of default as the ultimate conclusion. It is almost as though the Chancellor has forgotten that her job is to run the economy, not ruin the economy.

This would be a matter for separate debate—I know that, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I do not want to test your patience—but the raid on employer’s national insurance will devastate small businesses, charities and the care sector. It will cost Scottish public services—the public sector with direct employees in Scotland— £600 million, and when we include the partner agencies working with our NHS and our care services, that figure will be very much higher. Supermarkets and other retailers have also said that the inevitable result of the Chancellor’s changes will be higher prices for consumers. The Government make great play about not raising taxes, but it amounts to the same thing when wages are suppressed and prices are going up.

As the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) mentioned, the duty on Scotch whisky has been hiked in this Bill, which the industry has called an “indefensible tax grab”. This was despite Labour’s leader in Scotland—for Labour Members’ interest, he is a gentleman called Anas Sarwar—claiming that he spoke to the Chancellor about it. I would be very interested to know about that conversation, but perhaps it was: “Is it okay if I hike up duties, Anas?” with the reply, “Yes, no bother, Chancellor. You carry on.”

One of the glaring omissions in the Bill is any provision for the WASPI women. It is of course welcome that the Budget will address the great impositions put on people affected by the infected blood scandal and on postmasters. However, those were caused by the Post Office, or the NHS and others, whereas the WASPI women issue was caused by the UK Government. That great tragedy was caused by the Government, yet it is the one that is not addressed in this Bill or in the broader Budget.

It is therefore little wonder that polling in Scotland last week showed that 75% of Scots feel they are going to be worse off, or certainly no better off, as a result of the Budget. Since the Chancellor delivered her Budget, supermarkets, farms, pubs and telecom providers have all warned that these decisions will be inflationary.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I will speak about the impact of the Government’s changes to the energy profits levy on people and businesses in my constituency, and on the UK as a whole, in terms of the energy security the Government are meant to ensure and the Government’s ever-more ambitious decarbonisation targets, which are being put at risk.

The Chancellor’s decision to increase the EPL rate to 38% and extend it to 2030, while also removing investment allowances, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of our energy sector—indeed, the global energy sector—and the communities here that depend on it. According to Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce, 100,000 energy-related jobs across the UK, but disproportionately in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire, are being put at risk because of the changes. The OBR’s figures project that capital expenditure will fall by 26%, with oil production down 6.3% and gas production down 9.2%. For businesses across my constituency, that means fewer contracts, reduced investment and diminishing opportunities. Or to put it another way: fewer jobs, fewer prospects and more redundancies.

What is incomprehensible about the changes to the EPL is that they make no economic sense. Studies by Offshore Energies UK show that the changes will cost the Treasury £12 billion in lost tax revenue—£12 billion. If the Chancellor is so convinced that she is in a hole, maybe not digging deeper would be a good idea. The OEUK put that down to a rapid decline in production due to under-investment. While we are still going to use oil and gas for years to come, the Government are therefore choosing to take it from overseas producers where there are low environmental credentials and worse employment standards, rather than from the UK where we will be able to increase employment, secure employment, help our tax revenues and secure our economic growth both locally and nationally.

Labour’s changes in the Budget will see a wholly punitive regime, with the effective tax rate being 78% on oil and gas companies—the highest of any comparable off-sea mature basin. What other industry in the UK would be expected to deliver something as fundamental as our heating, lighting or transport fuel—indeed, energy to ensure the NHS can operate and schools can run—while also being taxed to such an extent that the Government are driving away investment in a sector so crucial to our national security?

What is particularly concerning about the EPL is the impact on home-grown energy businesses. These are not global multinationals that are often used as examples of the energy giants who make massive profits; companies that can and do buffer the impacts of EPL by increasing their overseas investments and reducing their investments in the North sea. Instead, this policy hits hardest the companies that have emerged and grown out of north-east Scotland, employing local people, supporting local supply chains and helping our local economies.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. In January 2023 the Conservative Chancellor increased the energy profit levy by 10%, from 25% to 35%. What was the impact of that change on North sea jobs and the economy?

[Harriet Cross]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We must remember that investment allowances have now been reduced and taken away. Increasing the EPL by a further 3% while decreasing investment allowances makes the North sea a really difficult place to invest in.

[Dave Doogan]

Apache has announced that it is set to pull out of the North sea basin. How does the hon. Lady think that announcement relates to the fiscal decisions of this Government? Does she think that it is inextricably linked to this Government’s ambitions for North sea oil and gas, and their failure to fully understand how the industry works?

[Harriet Cross]

The fact that Apache’s announcement came within a week of the Budget speaks for itself when it comes to the question of the final straw that broke the camel’s back.

As I was saying, the energy profits levy has the greatest impact on our local, home-grown businesses. It is turning the lights off in the very businesses that we should be supporting and championing. By removing investment allowances, the Government are forcing companies to scale back their North sea projects, thereby increasing our reliance on expensive imported energy from overseas.

North-east Scotland is already leading the charge on renewable energy. We have hydrogen projects in development, wind farms off our shores, and expertise that could and should position us as a global leader on clean, renewable energy technologies. However, a rushed, ill-thought-out transition—to which the EPL contributes—will undermine our efforts. The skills of our oil and gas sector are precisely what we need in order to deliver a sustainable transition. The companies that will be penalised by this levy are the ones that we need to invest in green technologies. Just yesterday I met developers of floating offshore wind farms, and I asked them about the EPL. They hope that one of their projects will involve collaboration with an oil and gas field; the floating wind farm will help to decarbonise the rig, and in return, the oil and gas producer will help to fund the cabling back to shore. However, now they fear that the increasing and extended EPL will jeopardise the oil and gas company’s ability and willingness to invest.

This Labour Government are turning what was a windfall tax into a permanent feature of our tax system, creating long-term uncertainty that will drive investment away from north-east Scotland. The energy profits levy is a blunt instrument, not a balanced strategy. The Government must listen to industry experts, local businesses, and communities like mine in Gordon and Buchan. We need a competitive, open business environment that attracts investment and will support our energy transition, while protecting jobs and supply chains and securing our energy supplies. The nation’s energy security depends on it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. Since taking office, this Government have been working to reset our relationship with our European friends and neighbours. The Prime Minister recently met the President of the European Commission and agreed to strengthen the UK-EU relationship to address global challenges such as the economic headwinds, geopolitical competition, irregular migration, climate change and energy prices. Improving our relationships will be good for business and good for consumers.

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

I am not going to ask the Chancellor to pre-empt tomorrow’s Budget, although I might actually have some luck if I did, based on current form. Instead, can she confirm to me that she fully appreciates how important agricultural property relief and business property relief are to the farmers and family businesses that do so much to grow local economies across the country?

[Rachel Reeves]

I recognise the importance of being able to pass on to the next generation the assets people have built up, and we will be setting out more details on all of our tax policies in the Budget tomorrow.

Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief.

I rise today to address a pressing issue affecting not only my constituents in Gordon and Buchan but rural communities and family-run businesses across the entirety of the United Kingdom. As we approach the autumn Budget, there is growing anxiety, yet to be put to bed, among farmers and family business owners about the potential changes to agricultural and business property reliefs. APR and BPR play a crucial role in securing the longevity of farming and family businesses. Without inheritance tax reliefs, the value of an individual’s business assets will be chargeable at a full 40%. The rate of inheritance tax in the UK kicks in at a relatively low value in relation to the value of farming assets, even for a small farm, particularly when compared with that of other countries. There is speculation in the media, coupled with Government silence, on the future of these reliefs, which is causing profound problems.

In a meeting with the Country Land and Business Association just yesterday, I heard how some of their members are already taking rash and rushed decisions because of this matter, which will impact their businesses, tax position and operations for years to come. Its members—our constituents—fear the worst in terms of changes to APR and BPR in the Budget and the profound impact that may have on their businesses, which, in many cases, provide employment for their families and wider communities, and have done so for generations.

APR and BPR are not, as some would have us believe, just tax loopholes for the wealthy. Viewing those reliefs as fair game in a Budget shows a complete lack of understanding of their importance and function. APR and BPR are lifelines for hard-working family farms and entrepreneurs, who form the backbone of our rural communities and local economies the length of the country. These are same businesses that we MPs are always too delighted to be seen to visit and champion as pillars of our communities and for their hard-working, entrepreneurial spirit; it is now time that we put those words into actions. Many of these businesses would not survive a succession event without APR or BPR—it is that simple. There is a reason why the reliefs have been in place for almost 50 years, which is that they work and are needed. Without them, farming and family businesses would change, and the UK’s rural business landscape would be unrecognisable.

Agricultural businesses are vital for not only economic activity but food production and security, land stewardship and environmental management. As farmers face ever-tighter margins from increased environmental obligations, spiking input costs and global market pressures, there is already considerable strain on farming profitability. It is important to understand that although farms have high asset values, they are often cash poor. In 2022-23, across all types of farms, 17% were failing to make a profit and 59% were taking home less than £50,000. Even where a profit is made, it is usually directly reinvested back into the farm—the business—in order to increase efficiency, develop or adapt. Cash does not simply sit idly; it is usually invested into assets needed to grow the farm and allow it to function, be it via land, buildings or kit.

APR is also vital for ensuring that farms can be passed to the next generation without a crippling inheritance tax bill. The continuity of family farms is necessary for the maintenance of our cultural heritage and expertise and, crucially, generational stewardship of our countryside and responsibility for food production. Without APR, many families would be forced to sell their land or buildings or even split up the farm in order to pay inheritance tax bills, which, even for the most modest of farms, could be hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not in the millions. That would mean selling the very assets and losing the scale needed to operate and produce food, fundamentally undermining the viability of those businesses.

It is important to appreciate that farms do not operate in isolation; they typically engage with multiple businesses in close proximity to their holdings. In my recent meeting with the National Farmers Union Scotland, I was told about a farm in north-east Scotland that engages with no fewer than 92 separate businesses within a radius of just a few miles; those businesses all benefit from that one farm. The closure of a single farm will have a ripple effect throughout any local economy.

The average age of a farmer in the UK is 59, and 35% of farmers are aged over 65. We all know that it is common to see farmers still managing their holdings well into their seventh or eighth decades, but that means that, on family farms, a succession event—planned or otherwise—can hit very suddenly. Without the reliefs, we risk losing a generation of farmers, threatening the future of British agriculture. Many family businesses will simply cease to exist if they are removed. The impact will extend not just to landowners, but far beyond, to tenancies and the wider rural economy.

In a recent poll by the CLA of over 500 landowners and farmers, 86% said they were likely to have to sell some or all of their land upon a death if inheritance tax reliefs were scrapped, and 90% said that the UK’s food security would be damaged in the long run. I find that really hard to disagree with. The potential loss of productive agricultural land and farmland has serious implications for our national food security, and I remind the Minister of the line in the Labour manifesto, that

“food security is national security.”

Let us also consider the alternative: if large areas of land were sold to cover an IHT bill, who would be likely to buy that land? Would it be another farmer, who would also have to manage their own capital in light of their own family’s IHT bill down the line, or a large corporate company, where boardrooms and bottom lines dictate the approach to environmental management, room for nature and food production? I do not think that that is the ownership and business structure of rural Britain that this Government, or indeed any of us, are striving for.

We must also consider the impact on tenants as well as landowning farmers. Any changes to APR that make it less appealing for a tenancy to be created will have a detrimental impact on tenants, the tenancy sector and the next generation of farmers.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

I might have this wrong, but I understand that the Tenant Farmers Association has suggested that there could be scope for reforming these taxes in a way that is of benefit to long-term tenancies. What is the hon. Member’s view on whether such reforms would be worthwhile?

[Harriet Cross]

I would obviously I have to see what the TFA suggested, but I think that we need to look at the agricultural sector as a whole. If land is being taken out of farming for any purpose, it is not going to be available for tenants, so if landowners are feeling compelled to sell their land because they have to cover an IHT bill, it does not matter what happens with reforms down the line; that land will not be available for tenants to access. I fully support the tenanted sector—it is a vital part of our farming sector—but, on its own, it will not be enough to keep land in production.

BPR is important for every family business the length and breadth of the country, and therefore in all of our constituencies. Family-owned businesses are the beating heart of the British economy. Across the UK, there are approximately 5.3 million family businesses, employing over 14 million people and contributing £225 billion per annum to the Treasury. BPR is especially vital for small family businesses—including many in my constituency of Gordon and Buchan—which form the backbone of our local economies, providing much needed local employment, stability and resilience in the face of economic and environmental challenges.

Businesses that rely on BPR to survive a succession event are often significant local employers, and their failure would have a knock-on effect on local services and on business rates, which are vital for local authorities. Other models of business ownership, such as plcs and those backed by private equity, do not face a tax charge on the change of ownership, so BPR is a vital mechanism to ensure that family businesses—85,000 of which are passed to the next generation each year—are at least on a level playing field.

About 77% of family small and medium-sized enterprises are first-generation businesses. Without BPR, these family firms would lose the opportunity to grow and transition into successful next-generation businesses. If, following a succession event, businesses effectively have to take a 40% hit on their finances or asset base to cover an IHT bill, what chance is there for them to secure longevity and flourish in the future? As we approach the Budget, I hope the Minister and his Government will take on board that APR and BPR are vital to the long-term planning and investment of rural areas and family businesses. It is not an overstatement to say that the future of rural communities and our food security depend on it.

In particular, the Government should focus on four things: providing clarity and reassurance on their intentions regarding APR and BPR; committing to maintaining those reliefs in their current form for at least the duration of this Parliament; commissioning an independent review on the wider economic and social impact of those reliefs beyond just the direct cost to the Treasury; and engaging meaningfully with rural communities, farmers and family business owners before pursuing any future changes.

APR and BPR are not mere tax reliefs; they are the foundation of a thriving, sustainable and entrepreneurial United Kingdom. They support our farmers and family businesses, pillars of our communities that have been there for generations. They ensure that businesses can continue to operate following a succession event and allow for the long-term planning necessary for farms and family businesses to develop and thrive. I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Harriet Cross]

I am grateful for the opportunity to wind up this debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions and the Minister for his closing remarks. A constant theme of today’s debate has been the importance of family businesses and family farms and the vital role they play in our rural economy. As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) rightly said and, of course, knows well from his ultra-rural island constituency and communities, the interconnection between farms and other local businesses cannot be denied. Any impact on farming impacts everything else, whether that is marts, vets or suppliers—the knock-on effects are endless.

I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), and echo her words about the Government’s commitment to not increase taxes on working people. If farmers and family businesses are not the pure definition of “working people”, I really do not know what is. Similarly, I welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) about the need for cross-party working on this issue; as we all strive to secure a stable rural environment for the economy and employment, that is really important. We should absolutely work on a cross-party basis as we go forward.

Farms and businesses must adapt and innovate to survive across generations. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) correctly identified, the ability of farms and family businesses to do so will be severely hampered by changes to APR and BPR—they must be able to survive across generations, as well as during single generations. Put very simply, people need cash in order to pay a tax bill, and they need a lot of cash to pay a very large tax bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) put it so succinctly, asking many farmers and family businesses to pay a tax bill from an illiquid asset is very difficult: they do not have liquid to play with.

As I said, I thank the Minister for his response. I appreciate that we are less than two weeks out from the Budget, and therefore he is completely unable to confirm or deny rumours, but I hope the concerns that have been raised today have been heard and will be considered in good faith, because they are not just the concerns of people in this Chamber. They are the concerns of our constituents—of farmers and small and family businesses the length and breadth of the country. The Minister pointed out that the cost of BPR has risen to £1.3 billion, but that compares very favourably with the £225 billion of tax income that family businesses contribute to the Exchequer each year.

I will conclude by reiterating my calls for clarity on this matter, maintenance of these reliefs, and meaningful engagement with affected communities on any such matters going forward. Today’s contributions have strengthened the case for action in this area: our rural communities, family businesses, food security and stewardship of our countryside all depend on the certainty that those reliefs provide. I thank all Members for their contributions to today’s important debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief.

Winter Fuel Payment

Harriet Cross Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I have not written a speech—I have written down a few points—because, like many colleagues, I have spent the past week agonising over how to vote today. In the end, I decided to vote with my conscience, which meant that I voted with the Government. [Interruption.] Conservative Members laugh, but I will tell them why.

Today I listened sincerely to contributions from Conservative Members, and this is what I have learned. First, there were several interventions in which they criticised the Government’s efforts to improve the take-up of pension credit. [Interruption.] Well, they did—Members can go and read Hansard if they want to dispute that. There have been several criticisms of that, almost to the point that, when they talk about who is vulnerable, I wonder whether they have a blind spot for some of our most vulnerable constituents.

Secondly, I have learned about Conservative Members’ disdain for hard-working people, because we have learned that, in their spending plans, they intended to reject the pay recommendations of their own pay body.

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

Does the hon. Member appreciate that some of the hardest working people are the pensioners we are now standing up for, and who we are trying to stop freezing in the winter to come and those ahead?

[Sam Rushworth]

I absolutely do, and Members may recall that I came to this House last week and asked the Chancellor a question about my own constituents. I represent the snowiest and coldest constituency in England, and I have had deep concerns about those pensioners. However, I have studied the detail and listened to pensioners in my constituency. In the last week alone, it has turned out that several people who have come forward to me expressing concerns about this policy are people who could be claiming pension credit but are not.

I want to make a broader point about the winter fuel allowance. The winter fuel allowance was introduced under the last Labour Government in 1997, when the state pension was £3,247 a year. If that had increased at the rate of inflation, today it would be £6,200 a year. Thankfully, it is more than twice that. [Hon. Members: “Because of us.”] Conservative Members say that it is because of them, but, again, they may want to look at the record. In fact, under both the previous Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government, the state pension increased at above the rate of inflation, and I absolutely welcome that. The winter fuel allowance, however, has not increased for 20 years. So the winter fuel allowance, in real terms, has become less and less year after year. The point I am making is that we need to consider our people. If the Conservatives’ argument is that, after 14 years in government, people on the full state pension are £100 away from death and destitution, what have they been doing for 14 years?

We need a new settlement for the economy, and this Government are actually answering the concerns of my constituents, who live in cold, stone-built, badly insulated homes, and who lost out when the previous Government chose to cut the funding available to insulate homes. This Government are setting up Great British Energy, which will help to cut bills over the long term. People are poor and struggling to pay their bills not because we do not give away enough taxpayers’ money in small pockets of benefits here and there. What we need are higher wages and better pensions, and I have been convinced by the Chancellor’s arguments that, under this Government, the pension will rise at or above the rate of inflation year on year, while energy bills will fall.

Finally, my constituents would not thank me if I did not take steps to stabilise the economy, because we need to get NHS waiting lists down and we need—

--- Later in debate ---

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

Some 17,047 pensioners in Gordon and Buchan will lose their winter fuel payment following today’s vote by the Labour party, but this decision for my constituents shows that they are being let down by their Governments at Holyrood and at Westminster. The Labour party is choosing to let them down by cutting the winter fuel payment, and the SNP is choosing not to pass on Barnett consequentials. In north-east Scotland, winters are longer and harsher than in most of the country. Our temperatures often fall below minus 10°C for a sustained period, and in recent years it has not been unusual to have had minus 20°C in Aberdeenshire. The winter fuel payment is not a luxury for our pensioners; it is a lifeline.

This is the Labour party’s choice. As much as it would like to explain that choice away, it has chosen to cut the winter fuel payment, and it must face what that means. Labour’s choice means that our pensioners now have to make their own choices, so Labour’s choice has become a pensioner’s choice.

Perhaps most shocking of all is Labour’s breathtaking hypocrisy on this issue. In 2017, Labour Members on these Opposition Benches had their own research showing that cutting winter fuel payments could lead to almost 4,000 excess deaths. They then vehemently opposed any changes to what they called that “vital” support. What has changed? Have pensioners suddenly become more resilient to the cold, or has the Labour party simply abandoned its principles to fund its own political choices?

Many pensioners in my constituency still rely on solid fuels such as oil, so once a year, going into winter, they fill up their tanks. Payment for that will be coming shortly—before November, and way before next year and any pension rises. How will those pensioners afford to fill their tanks and heat their homes in the months to come?