Farming and Inheritance Tax
John Glen Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
To address the right hon. Gentleman’s point, we recognise that agricultural and business property relief play an important role in supporting family farms, but the full unlimited exemption from inheritance tax has simply become unsustainable. The four most recent years-worth of data make clear why. The data shows that a very small number of agricultural property relief claimants, including those who claim business property relief too, benefited from a very significant amount of relief. In total, 47% of the Exchequer cost of the relief went to the top 7% of claims. To be clear what that means, I will put it another way. For every 14 or so estates, the top one among them claimed half the total relief.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Let me tell the Minister what concerns me most. There has not been an impact assessment, but if the major driver for the Government, whether we accept it or not, was to raise some money from this source, why were other more effective mechanisms not used, such as business roll-over relief, where a business could be sold in another context and rolled over into buying the land, deferring capital gains tax? If that mechanism had been used, the money would have been taken from much wealthier people who were not actually producing food in the first place. Now, we are capturing a massive proportion of small family farms completely unnecessarily, because due consideration of better alternatives was not done by the Minister.
James Murray
I reassure the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of respect personally, that we carefully considered how to calibrate the policy to ensure that significant relief from inheritance tax is still available to family farms, while at the same time fixing the public finances in as fair a way as possible.
James Murray
I have confidence in the way in which we have calibrated the policy. As I said to the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen), it has balanced the need to retain significant, generous provision of inheritance tax relief for family farms with ensuring that, at the same time, we fix the public finances in the fairest way possible.
John Glen
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. In view of the point that has just been made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), will he not consider, at the very least, looking at some dispensation for farmers above a certain age, given the lack of time that they will have to plan for this intervention? The truth is that someone who is near retirement age will be faced with the prospect of 10 years of all their projected profits being eaten up by this tax, which will mean that the farm cannot go to the next generation. The hon. Gentleman must surely look at some mitigations to deal with that reality for so many farmers who are concentrated in that older age group.
James Murray
We know that individual circumstances will vary. Any individual who is concerned about their specific tax liability should obviously consult an accountant or financial adviser. We would not know, from a thumbnail sketch, whether that person had any inherited nil rate bands, what their liabilities were, what decisions they had made about gifting, and so on. A huge number of factors will play into this, and it is right for individuals to seek specific advice. Things that are said in this Chamber may be creating undue anxiety, when people should be looking into the detail.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
It is a privilege to contribute to the debate. I represent Salisbury and south Wiltshire, which has a large number of farmers. A large number of them visited me here in the House of Commons and, a week later, I had the largest meeting of farmers I have ever had in Salisbury. They were gravely disappointed and concerned about the implications of this Budget measure. It was a shock, because it was widely expected that this measure would not be on the table when the Labour Government came in.
One of the greatest privileges of my career was to spend most of the past eight years—six and a half of them—in the Treasury in various roles. I was PPS to a Chancellor, Philip Hammond, and then I was Economic Secretary and Chief Secretary. I understand the dynamic between spending Departments and the Treasury in the run-up to a Budget, and I have a serious degree of sympathy for the Ministers who were in DEFRA in the run-up to this Budget, but when APR and BPR were put on the table in front of me and my ministerial colleagues at numerous points during our time in the Treasury, we said no.
I acknowledge—I am trying to be as reasoned and as reasonable as I can—that other choices would have had to be made, and I recognise the difficulty of those choices. We faced difficulties when we came into government in 2010 with a 10% deficit. This Government had a different set of challenges, although I would dispute some of the numbers. However, I want to keep my remarks focused on the measure at hand.
The reason I would never have wanted to progress the removal of APR and BPR was that that policy was the product of a technical desktop economist’s view of tax raising. It was not an option when one took into account the reality of what would actually happen to the rural economy and the implications for farming. A number of colleagues have rehearsed excellent examples where farms of quite modest size but serious capital value would be massively compromised by that policy, even with an opportunity to repay that inheritance tax interest-free over 10 years, as the Chancellor said to the Select Committee. I acknowledge that—it is standard practice for this sort of relief—but given the profitability of the typical farm, it is just not a realistic prospect.
I have had some dealings in the past with the farming Minister, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), and I genuinely have a great deal of respect for him—I do not want to embarrass him by saying anything more. He has a large number of issues to deal with, and I think all of us in this House want to see some clarity around the land use framework, and how we reconcile the question of where we build more homes with the challenges of renewable energy. However, we have to keep in focus the core function of our farmers, which is to produce food. I recognise the point made in an intervention earlier, and I am not suggesting that the Government are going to say, “We are going to have solar farms everywhere,” but we do need to have a coherent farming policy as a whole and a land use strategy that people understand.
The issue with this policy is that it is going to decimate the number of family farms unless there is a significant increase in thresholds, there is an age limit on when the policy applies, or an alternative tax mechanism like business asset roll-over relief is examined by the Treasury. Unless those changes happen—and there is time to consider those changes before the legislation comes before this House, which will probably be at the end of next year—we in this country are going to be in real trouble with the legacy of this decision. I urge the Minister’s colleagues in the Treasury to think again and come back with better proposals for their colleague.
Employer National Insurance Contributions
John Glen Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The issue at the crux of the debate is one of economic responsibility. It is about a choice whether to invest or to let further decline take place in our public services.
They say a week is a long time in politics. Well, four months is clearly still not long enough for the Conservatives to have learned any lessons from the last general election about why they might be sitting on the Opposition Benches and we might be sitting on the Government Benches. They crashed the economy, wasted billions of pounds of taxpayers’ hard-earned money and ran the NHS into the ground. They then called an early election to run away from the mess that they knew this Government would inherit.
As legislators, we need to be honest with the electorate about the trade-offs and challenges this country faces, and we cannot simultaneously rebuild our public services and cut taxes at the same time. As has been said, there is no magic money tree—we saw with the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget the impacts of a Government who do not understand those facts.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I recognise there are political differences across the House, but the hon. Gentleman surely has to be concerned about the overall impact of the decision on national insurance on the ability and inclination of those who invest in the real economy to generate the wealth and tax revenues that will sustain the economy going forward. Surely he can recognise that the decisions made by his Government are having a negative effect on growth, which will mean more taxes and more borrowing.
Danny Beales
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that rather long intervention. I must say that the Conservatives do not understand the economy. If someone cannot get a train to work, they cannot work; if they cannot get a hospital appointment, they cannot work. Time and again, I hear from employers that they want investment, stability, and for their employees to be able to contribute in the workplace. To separate public services and the private sector into two diametrically opposed parts of the economy is what the Conservatives did for 14 years. They cut public services time and again, and we all face longer-term costs because of that fact.
The Labour Government understand that. Sadly, the Conservative party still does not. The choice we are still hearing is for continuing austerity. No one in this country voted for that and no one on the Labour Benches, at least, wants that. We want NHS waiting lists to fall. We want crumbling schools rebuilt, and investment in our vital public services and armed forces.
Financial Services: Mansion House Speech
John Glen Excerpts(1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tulip Siddiq
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She has done an enormous amount of work in this area, and I applaud her for that. She was instrumental in the Government taking our initial steps to regulate the “buy now, pay later” sector. There is a need for “buy now, pay later” during a cost of living crisis, and people will access those companies’ products, but I have brought this under FCA control so far, and have regulated to ensure that it is safer, and that people do not store up a huge amount of debt that they cannot pay back. The consultation is open until 29 November, and I ask her to urge others to feed into it to ensure that we get this policy right; that was not done by the previous Government. I will bring forward legislation as quickly as possible, but I thought it was important to hear what people and the industry had to say, because we want to regulate properly. She is being patient, and I ask her to be a bit more patient; our intention is to make the sector as well regulated as possible under the FCA.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I warmly welcome much of what was announced last week—the work on listings, mutuals and the remit refresh—but I say to the hon. Lady and the Minister for pensions that there is considerable reticence in the pensions industry when it comes to many of the drivers of change highlighted last week. We need a complete cultural shift and change in appetite from those who lead the pensions industry. I urge her to keep under review the fiscal incentives, and the transparency and accountability rules, so that we can see the performance gap that results from not making some of these changes. I look sympathetically on the aspirations that she has set out today, and I wish her well as she moves forward with these critical changes, which should have a lot of support from across the House.
Tulip Siddiq
I know that the right hon. Member did a huge amount of work in the financial services sector while he was in office. The civil servants still talk about how amazing he was—much to my dismay sometimes! We agree that there needs to be a change in appetite in this place. Transparency is top of the list, as the Minister for Pensions just whispered in my ear. We thank the right hon. Member for his constructive approach on the review, and urge him to tell the people he knows in the sector to respond to and feed in to the consultation.
Business Property Relief and Agricultural Property Relief
John Glen Excerpts(2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) on securing this debate. We have already spoken briefly in an all-party parliamentary group meeting about the similarities between our constituencies. She and I both know the importance of a thriving agricultural sector, the jobs it provides, and the almost undefinable contribution it makes to the character of the constituency and to a community.
I am concerned because farmers in my constituency have told me that they have been dealing with the chaos of the economy for the last 14 years. They have been dealing with crashing consumer confidence and an international trading situation in this country that simply is not conducive to the long-term success of the agricultural sector. For example, the Australia and New Zealand trade deal was a betrayal of the sheep farmers in my constituency in particular and has threatened their long-term business prospects. I hope that the Minister not only responds to the points made in this debate but talks about how we can make sure that the economy is stable, secure and on firm foundations, and that we never again see our farmers sold down the river as they once were.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Canadian deal has not been signed in the last 18 months in order to take account of the agricultural sector’s concerns in particular? The pressing, immediate concern for which the Minister must provide a resolution today is how this Government are disposed towards agricultural property relief and business property relief. That is their concern now. The hon. Gentleman is making a political point—whatever happened previously, we have to focus on his Government’s responsibility in the coming two weeks.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
I have just been reminded by the Clerk that it is very unusual for a shadow Cabinet member to speak in a Westminster Hall debate as a Back Bencher. I will allow Joe Morris to respond, but apparently that is not the done thing.
Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)
It is not the Opposition Chief Whip’s decision; it lies with the Chairman of Ways and Means. Our rule book says that it is highly unusual. I will allow Joe Morris to respond, but hopefully there will not be a back and forth between the shadow Cabinet and Back Benchers.
Joe Morris
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his highly unusual intervention. I will make a brief university point and say that it is highly unusual to have a Mansfield College MP intervene on a Mansfield College MP; it is probably the first time that has happened in this Parliament.
Joe Morris
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I am glad that the last Government learned some of the lessons of the Australia trade deal and implemented them. It is important that we get an answer on APR and BPR. I am making a slightly political point, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will humour me for it, but it is important that we maintain that international trade is an ongoing piece and the agricultural sector does not exist in isolation. None of these reliefs exist in isolation. Farming, more than anything, is an industry with concerns that sit between the Treasury, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Business and Trade. More than almost any other industry, it is reliant on good cross-party and cross-departmental working, and we need to ensure that the Government do that. I hope that we do not consider these things just in isolation but overall and together, and we must ensure that the Government are working towards securing them.
One of the main concerns that I picked up from my constituency is the inability of consumers to distinguish between British and foreign produce when it is badged up the wrong way. I hope the Treasury will listen to representations on how we can combat that kind of false advertising when foreign produce is repackaged as UK produce. How we keep the family farm going, and how we ensure that small farms are able to continue to produce in the Tyne valley, is deeply concerning to me. I have spoken to a lot of local farmers about land loss and about large corporations buying up prime agricultural land and using it to—I think it is fair to say—greenwash. That is genuinely a national issue that requires cross-party cohesion and cross-party solutions. My own hackneyed political point scoring is not going to help in that, but in the long term and in this Parliament, I would always welcome working to address that. However, I urge the Minister to remember that farms are businesses and they need long-term consumer confidence. They need an overall business climate that rewards investment and entrepreneurialism, but not one that is not built on sand. They need one that is built on secure, stable foundations and that is open to serious cross-party working.
When we look at how we get the rural economy growing, it is really important that both land-owning farms and tenant farms in particular can continue to employ people and that there is money going out of those farms into the local economy. I have spoken to my constituents: they have had to take certain crops out of production to grow those that need less manpower. They would have employed people to work those fields or work that livestock, but they have been forced to change by often badly designed initiatives from DEFRA, and we need to work cross-party to ensure that those initiatives are better designed in future. They have been forced into those measures that, over the course of many years, slowly bring their workforce down and lead to less money coming into the local economy. In his response, I hope the Minister can ensure that the Treasury hears the pleas of rural communities. This issue is genuinely a concern across parties, and my constituents are very concerned about the ongoing removal of prime agricultural land from food production.