Taxes
John Hayes Excerpts(2 days, 3 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bradley Thomas
I thank my right hon. Friend—that is another failure by Labour.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
There are two fundamental macroeconomic problems facing this country. One is productivity, and the second is mass immigration, which has displaced investment in domestic skills. The Budget did nothing about those, and yet the tax system could be used to address both.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is very experienced. He should have been here at the start of the debate if he wanted to intervene.
Access to Banking Hubs: Hertfordshire
John Hayes Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day 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
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered access to banking hubs in Hertfordshire.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank Clementine Manning from my office for the extensive work she has put into researching for this speech and many of my other contributions to the House. I urge colleagues to be gentle with me; this is my first Westminster Hall debate, and I have yet to learn how to do these things properly. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is here to show me the way, with hopefully an intervention in due course.
Access to banking services is essential for everyone across the country, and more and more our rural and semi-rural areas are seeing their access to banking services reduced. That is a particular issue for those who are unable to use technology to access online banking, and I know that many who are able to use online banking still feel more reassured if they are able to carry out banking activities face-to-face. Having seen the immensely positive impact that increased access to banking services through the post office has had in Rickmansworth in my constituency of South West Hertfordshire, I am campaigning for the establishment of a banking hub in Abbots Langley, another area in my constituency, to ensure that as many of my constituents as possible are able to access these essential services. I appreciate that everyone else here wants the same.
Hertfordshire in particular has felt the impact of the withdrawal of banking services, as, despite there being over 160 banking hubs now opened, just four are in Hertfordshire, with none in my constituency. Rural areas are twice as likely to depend on their local post office for cash and banking services, and it is essential that people in those areas are not left behind. Post offices have always been, and remain, critical assets to our communities, providing essential services. I have had the pleasure of meeting local postmasters in Abbots Langley and Rickmansworth, as well as visiting a Royal Mail distribution centre, to learn more about the sheer volume of service provided by their hard workers. From speaking to those postmasters, the essential role that they play in supporting our communities in all ways is clear. With many people unable to use technology, or simply more comfortable with face-to-face provision, the provision of banking hubs is just one of those essential services.
In the UK as a whole, 99% of the population live within three miles of a post office branch, as do 97.9% of the UK’s rural population. Post offices also make up more than 66% of all branch-based cash access points in the UK. That is particularly relevant because of the decline in the number of bank branches. This is not just an issue in Hertfordshire or my constituency; across the UK, we have seen 6,200 bank or building society branch closures since 2015. In my constituency of South West Hertfordshire, 89% of banks have closed since 2015, leaving us with only a Nationwide in Rickmansworth.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My hon. Friend is right that this is a problem felt across Britain, as banks abandon their customers and close branches in my constituency in Crowland, the Deepings, Holbeach, Long Sutton and Sutton Bridge. The key thing about this issue is that it affects those least able to bank online; it also affects all of us who believe that banking should be an experience where people meet other people and personal service counts. I thank my hon. Friend for this debate. I call on the Minister to have more banking hubs, as the Payment Choice Alliance has requested—I hope she will say that when she sums up.
Mr Mohindra
My right hon. Friend has obviously had early sight of my speech, because I was going to get on to exactly that about human interaction, but I will let colleagues hold off for a few minutes while I carry on the main body of my speech. As my right hon. Friend said, the situation is deeply desperate, but sadly, not unique to South West Herts. I know other Members in this House will be feeling similar circumstances, as one in seven constituencies across the UK have only one bank or no bank at all.
Access to cash is essential, and it is important that we retain the ability to withdraw and deposit cash to support that, particularly as that allows those who do not use online banking to keep an eye on their personal finances. The post office supports this vital service and is essential for people in my area. On average, £1.6 million is withdrawn from post offices in my constituency every month, while £3.5 million is deposited. Although the post office provides an amazing service, a banking hub in a post office gives people proper support. We must prevent the closure of post offices, many of which are now run by a single person and are not necessarily profitable. It would be a great damage to all our areas if post offices were to close too.
Although post offices such as the one in Rickmansworth have stepped up to provide greater banking services than those normally available, we cannot expect our constituents to rely on post offices to replace the banks if there is no banking hub in place, as they do not provide the same level of service. Although Rickmansworth is fortunate to have some banking services available via the post office, as well as in the Nationwide branch, since I was elected in 2019 South West Hertfordshire has lost NatWest, Barclays and Santander in Rickmansworth.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) for securing this important debate.
I begin by acknowledging that my constituency does not fall within the boundaries of Hertfordshire; it is slightly further north. However, as we have heard, the issue of access to banking hubs is an important one across the UK. My constituents, like those of the other hon. Members here today, understand the difficulties brought about by banks closing. Older constituents who have no access to digital equipment or services are often the worst affected. For some, their family members step in to support them with things such as making NHS appointments, but for many, handing over control of their banking feels like a step too far and a loss of independence. Others have no family nearby to help. Being pushed to use complex online banking is not always appropriate for these customers.
In addition, as we have heard, the ability to deposit cash is crucial for many local businesses, and with the closure of more and more post offices, it is a growing problem. Despite having many elderly residents, Bearsden in my constituency has lost all its bank branches and it appears that there is no access to an ATM. There are also no plans for a banking hub there.
The Government have made assurances that by 2029 banks will have set up 350 banking hubs. The truth is that that is woefully inadequate and much too slow. The number of bank branches operating dropped from almost 15,000 in 1986 to just 5,745 by 2023.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady is making a powerful point and she is right about the number. The Payment Choice Alliance, to which I have already referred, estimates that if every community with a population of 5,000 or more were provided with a banking hub, there would be about 1,200 of them. Ministers want solutions, not just questions, and that is a solution. I invite the Minister to consider that: any community with a population of 5,000 or more that does not have a bank should have a hub. I think that would be reasonable.
Susan Murray
I thank the right hon. Member for making a good point for the Minister to consider.
The closure of branches and their replacement with only 350 hubs represents nothing more than big banks trying to increase their profits further at the expense of their customers. That is not just a mild inconvenience; it presents a serious accessibility issue, as we have heard. For the disabled, the elderly and those without technical know-how, bank branches are often a vital resource.
Bank Closures and Banking Hubs
John Hayes Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
I commend the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing this important debate.
Like so many places across the country, bank branches have closed at an alarming rate in my constituency. Not so long ago, residents could pop down to a branch of every major high street bank in the towns of Waltham Cross, Cheshunt and Hoddesdon. Just last week, Halifax became the latest bank branch to shut its doors in Waltham Cross, while in Hoddesdon the former site of the Barclays remains empty, a scar on an otherwise vibrant town centre. In my town of Cheshunt, a town of 40,000 people, not a single bank branch remains. That simply cannot be right.
The lack of in-person banking facilities is depriving people of access to vital services. For so many older and vulnerable people, it is causing huge difficulty and frustration, as they are forced to rely on digital services such as apps and smartphones.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, and I particularly wish to draw his attention to the plight of blind people. Royal National Institute of Blind People research in 2023 found that 28% of blind and partially sighted people never used the internet, they struggle with ATMs, and they struggle too with travel to banks.
Lewis Cocking
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. It is really important that we expand the rules to get banking hubs in more locations across the country. Not least of all, my nan does not do online banking. Every time I go and see her, she badgers me about it. She will specifically bank with someone where she can have face-to-face services, because she will not do online banking. It is a real struggle, because some banks say, “Well, you’ve got to telephone.” But even then, one has to have a smartphone to get a code on the app for security, so it is very difficult for our older and disabled constituents to access those vital services.
When Barclays went from the high street in Hoddesdon, it did a “Barclays local”. Through the good work of my Conservative-run Broxbourne council, we managed to get it into the Spotlight, our local theatre, but it is cashless. That is nonsense! Its bread and butter business as a high street bank is to deal with cash and get people access to its cash and banking services, but it wants to run a service that is now cashless. We tried in Cheshunt—as I said, a town of 40,000 people with no banking services—to get the NatWest banking van at the car park of our Laura Trott sports centre, but again it would only offer a cashless service. This is bread and butter to the high street banks. They should accept cash and we should bring forward legislation to ensure that our constituents across the country have access to banking services. We need to look at the rules, because waiting until the last bank is in our high street does not promote consumer choice or solve people’s banking and access to cash needs.
On buses, my constituents are lucky if the bus even turns up—we get one bus once an hour—so including public transport in analysis of banking hub locations is unreliable. We need to widen the criteria to enable more banking hubs to be opened up across the country.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I do not intend to labour too long on rehashing points that have already been made. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) for securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee for scheduling it.
It is very clear that access to a physical bank is important for many people in our communities. My constituency, like those of colleagues present, has not been spared the loss of banks. In Lichfield, we have recently lost our Barclays branch, but up the road in Burntwood we have a much more difficult situation: every single bank branch has been closed for a number of years. The community has stepped up, as it so often does in Burntwood, and the post office has filled the breach. There is some access to banking services, but that is not the same as a physical branch.
As I sit and listen to the debate today, I realise that there is one word that sums up the importance of this matter—regeneration. Burntwood has a high street that is almost ready to go. Some businesses are thriving and the footfall is massive, but there is not the investment to make it kick on and become a town centre of which the whole town can be proud.
In Lichfield, where the banks are more present, there is a thriving cafe culture. Although everything is not all sunshine and rainbows in Lichfield and it never will be, we can really see the difference in the two town centres. What we are seeing here is almost an unvirtuous circle, where high streets start to struggle, footfall drops off, banks start to struggle and withdraw, footfall drops further, shops struggle more, and so on. It is a spiral to the bottom.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is becoming an hon. Friend. What happens is that the banks encourage their customers to do things online. You cannot open an account in a branch—where branches still exist—and then say that online banking is replacing face-to-face contact.
Dave Robertson
It is important to say that internet banking is not going away. These two ideas—face-to-face banking and internet banking—should be two sides of the same coin. All our high street banks should recognise that they have a responsibility to both ways of working. I prefer to bank online because I am busy and spend half my life on trains, but there are people who do not have that luxury, as they are technologically reluctant to engage. I hear many people ask the Government, “What can we do to get more banking hubs? What can we do to encourage more physical banks?” That is something that I would support, particularly for towns such as Burntwood, where bringing those banks back could be that spark of regeneration—the thing that starts to reverse that unvirtuous circle, so that it becomes a virtuous circle, where those banks are present and they drive footfall: it is easier to get cash, easier for businesses to bank there and easier for the high street to come back.
We all know that the high street is the physical representation of how people feel the economy is going. One reason people are so worried about the economy is that our high streets have been failing for decades. Governments have not supported high streets for far too long, and I am proud that this Government are saying that they will now do so. Getting banks back on to the high street, where they belong, can be that first step for towns such as Burntwood and the others that we have heard about in today’s debate.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on setting the scene and on his introduction of the issue. As an MP for an area that has been hard hit by the removal of 11 banks, first in rural villages and now increasingly in even the main towns of Strangford, the issue is incredibly important. We need the regulation of access to banking services in legislation and to stop the drain towards online and city-centre banking only.
Millions of people in the UK still rely on cash day to day; in fact, some 1.1 million people in the UK remain unbanked and rely entirely on cash, while more than 8 million adults report that they would struggle to cope in a cashless society. A YouGov survey found that nearly 28% of small businesses use cash at least weekly. The British Retail Consortium has shown a rise in the use of cash for the second year in a row to 20% of transactions in 2023, as more and more people use cash to manage their budgets in a difficult economic environment.
While closing branches, banks have managed to increase their profits by some £2.5 billion. It is clear where their focus is. However, once the banks are closed and the profits are allocated to shareholders, how will they continue to up the profits? What services will be removed next? The percentage of branch closures is lower in larger and medium-sized towns and highest in villages and smaller communities, at 50% and 70% respectively.
Sir John Hayes
That is why the Link criteria need to change, is it not? The trouble is that rural areas are disproportionately damaged by the fact that the population size is not big enough. People cannot get access to banking in The Deepings, Long Sutton, Donington and elsewhere in my constituency. I am sure it is the same in the hon. Gentleman’s.
Jim Shannon
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; that is replicated not just in his constituency and mine, but probably in those of everyone here today. Those in rural areas are twice as likely as those in urban areas to depend on their local post office branch for cash and banking services. With 11 banks closing and two banking hubs opening, we depend more than ever on the post office. We have credit unions but what we can do with them is very limited, despite being very welcome.
While bank networks decline, the Post Office continues to provide free and convenient access to cash through its branch network. However, the branch in Newtownards in Strangford is set to close—there is potential for that to happen, anyway—and that is absolutely devastating because the range of services that are not available in the local garage, which has a sub-post office, will only grow. Even the Post Office must therefore rethink its obligations.
Through the banking framework that the Post Office has with 30 UK banks and building societies, postmasters support over £3 billion in withdrawals and deposits each month, providing a trusted, convenient face-to-face service at the heart of communities. However, large branches such as the one in Newtownards must be left open if we are truly to have a full service.
According to Age UK, 27% of over-65s and 58% of over-85s rely on face-to-face banking. Nearly a third—31%—of people over the age of 65 said they were “uncomfortable” with the idea of banking online. The age sector must be protected, and the way to do that is to require legislatively a better minimum service from banks and post offices that are trying to fill the gap but are pulling back.
So what do I want? I want banks to be required through legislation that they deliver for their customers. I want to ensure that the post offices, including the main post office, are in place in my constituency and to see opportunities through credit unions. I look to the Minister to outline how the Labour Government will protect access to cash, face-to-face banking and a full-service post office in each area.
Mark Garnier
I agree 100%. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Let us be clear that the decline of our high streets and the decline of bank branches have run concurrently as behaviour has changed over the last couple of decades and retail activity has increasingly moved online. Banks are, of course, commercial entities, and their decisions to close branches are often driven by commercial imperatives, which is not necessarily what we want to hear in this debate. Falling footfall, the rise of digital banking and the need to be cost-effective are just some of those reasons.
As we have heard so often, there are now just 3,000 bank branches remaining in the UK, and that number is expected to drop even further in coming years. ATM numbers, especially free-to-use machines, have also declined. Only 14% of payments in the UK were made with cash in 2022, and withdrawals from the Link network are down 50% on pre-covid levels.
Sir John Hayes
The clue is in the phrase “banking service”. It is about providing a service to people. As the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) said, banks dignify communities too. This is about personal interactions, trust and building relationships. That is what we do when we go into a bank, and we could never do that in the same way online.
Mark Garnier
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. This is about face-to-face relationships, not something done through an app.
Behind the statistics I cited are real people and real communities. The digitally excluded, older people, those in poor health and people with lower financial resilience mostly rely on cash. Small businesses and rural communities are hard hit. The question for Members who want to compel banks to keep branches open is how much digital-first customers should be charged to retain loss-making branches—notwithstanding, of course, that profit question.
Of course, the answer cannot simply be to do nothing and to walk away from our responsibilities to those who are left behind. The previous Government recognised the importance of maintaining essential banking services as a foundation for public confidence in this sector. Through the post office network, we provided a system of free and convenient access to banking services, and the banking framework partnership between the Post Office and over 30 of the UK’s banks and building societies means consumers and businesses can access basic banking services through the post office network. The Post Office now has more branches than all the banks and building societies combined, and according to the Financial Conduct Authority, post office branches make up more than 66% of all branch-based cash access points in the UK. The last Government also introduced banking hubs, which we have heard a great deal about.
I am conscious of time, and I do not want to incur your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, so although I have a lot more to say, I think it would be prudent for me to step aside and allow the Minister to face up to the passion about this issue from Members representing their communities.
Inheritance Tax: Family-owned Businesses
John Hayes Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks 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
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I will call Susan Murray to move the motion, and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of Inheritance Tax on family-owned businesses.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir John, and a privilege to lead this debate on a matter of real consequence to our economy. I begin by paying tribute to the extraordinary contributions that family-owned businesses make across the country, not least in my own Mid Dunbartonshire constituency. They are not just economic actors; they are part of the fabric of our communities. They offer good local jobs and apprenticeships, sponsor local sports teams, support local charitable activities, and keep our high streets and industrial parks alive with character, energy and local pride.
According to the Fraser of Allander Institute, in 2025 family-owned businesses are in turbulent and uncertain times. They are facing national insurance increases, with many scaling back plans for workforce expansion and recruitment as a result. The latest quarterly economic indicator from the Scottish Chambers of Commerce network presents a stark picture, as businesses face pressure that threatens to derail growth, investment and competitiveness. Taxation is now the No. 1 concern facing Scottish businesses.
Susan Murray
I certainly agree that we need to protect our family-owned businesses and do everything we can to help them to thrive, rather than putting them in a position whereby the economy is at risk of losing both jobs and growth.
I will finish the question that I was putting to the Minister. Will he consider amending the proposed legislation to ensure that the changes do not weaken genuine family businesses, and make the transfer of shares in a family business to the next generation exempt from inheritance tax for seven years, provided that the business is not sold in that period? If it is sold within that period, inheritance tax would become payable, along with the capital gains tax, both of which could be funded from the proceeds of the sale.
This Government have stated that growing the UK economy is essential, but attacking the backbone of the economy—the family businesses that have proved they can adapt and change rapidly to meet changing market needs and conditions, and that support supply chains and local jobs—must not happen. Family businesses should be supported, not raided for a relatively de minimis gain to the Exchequer.
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
Before I call the Minister, I hope he will leave me a couple of moments at the end of the debate to put the question.
James Murray
My hon. Friend is a great champion of businesses and farmers in her constituency. When we were deciding how to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief, we made sure that generous tax reliefs still existed in the tax system precisely because we want to continue to support small and family-owned farms and businesses in particular. I will come to those in a moment.
I am conscious that you asked me to give you a few moments at the end, Sir John. Do you mean at the end of my remarks?
Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)
I need about 15 seconds at the very end of your remarks.
James Murray
Got it. To conclude my remarks on the wider support that we are giving to businesses, I also draw hon. Members’ attention to the fact that we committed in the “Corporate Tax Roadmap”, which was published at the autumn Budget, to maintain the small profits rates and marginal relief at their current rates and thresholds, as well as the £1 million annual investment allowance.
I know that many Members are concerned about the reforms to inheritance tax that are the subject of the debate, so I will now turn to them. The reality is that the full, unlimited relief introduced in 1992 has become unfair and unsustainable, particularly in the economic context that we inherited. Under the current system, the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets is heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates, which is clear from the latest HMRC data from 2021-22. More than 50% of business property relief was claimed by just 4% of estates making claims. That means that the wealthiest few per cent of estates claimed £558 million in tax relief. That contributes to the very largest estates paying a lower average effective inheritance tax rate than smaller estates. It is neither fair nor sustainable to maintain such a large tax break for such a small number of claimants, given the wider pressures on the public finances. It is for that reason that the Government are changing how we target agricultural property relief and business property relief.
Under the reformed system, estates will still benefit from 100% relief for the first £1 million of combined assets from April 2026, and on top of that there will be an uncapped 50% relief on further assets. That means that inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%. Those reliefs sit on top of the standard nil-rate bands and other exemptions, such as transfers between spouses and civil partners.
Oral Answers to Questions
John Hayes Excerpts(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I visited Stockport with my hon. Friend and the Mayor of Greater Manchester last year to see the regeneration work happening there, linking new investment in housing with transport infrastructure. I thank my hon. Friend for his leadership. Last month, alongside the increase in defence spending to 2.5% of GDP, we also set the national wealth fund’s strategic direction, with a focus on support for the defence sector through dual-use technology, creating more good jobs in all parts of the country, including Stockport.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Economic policy should benefit all regions of Britain, including rural counties such as Lincolnshire, where we grow a disproportionate amount of the food that feeds the nation. Does the Chancellor recognise that, in an age when the two biggest economies in the world are protecting their industries—including agriculture—the time has come to reinvest in manufacturing and to consume more of what we produce here in Britain? To echo the call of the Liberal Democrats’ spokesperson, we should buy British. That means using Government procurement to back British jobs, British projects and British workers.
Rachel Reeves
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has set out new reforms for procurement rules to enable just that. We want more British businesses to win contracts. We want more small businesses in Britain to win contracts—businesses in all parts of the economy, including in food and farming. In farming, we gave a record settlement of £5 billion in the Budget last year to support this important part of our national economy.
Spring Statement
John Hayes Excerpts(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Reeves
I know that my hon. Friend is incredibly proud to represent Barrow and Furness and that her constituents are incredibly proud to work on our nuclear deterrent. This Government will always stand with them, putting in place our new plan for Barrow for new jobs and new investment in the town, so that we get value for money for taxpayers and, critically, ensure our country’s national security.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Chancellor was right to highlight productivity as an issue, and right, too, to focus on skills shortages, although she did not explicitly note the implicit link between them. She failed, however, to say that her productivity ambitions have been scaled back and that the number of young people not in education, employment or training is growing. Will she set out—perhaps in a note in the Library of the House or in a statement—by how much she expects apprenticeships to grow year on year? When I was a Minister, we reached the highest level in modern times, and the numbers are much lower now. We need to grow apprenticeships to build our skills and to grow productivity. If she does not do that, we will feel that hope exceeds expectation.
Rachel Reeves
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. He speaks powerfully about something that he knows a huge amount about. Let me answer three parts of that question. First, the OBR has revised up our productivity in its forecast. Secondly, we have a massive problem with young people not in education, employment or training—it involves one in eight young people. However, as I said in answer to a previous question, the OBR has not taken into account the impact of our back to work programme. It will work on that over the summer with the DWP and the Treasury, because we want to make sure that we design that in a way that gets as many young people back into work, contributing to the economy and contributing to our society.
We were able to announce, just a couple of weeks ago in National Apprenticeship Week, an expansion of the apprenticeship programme, particularly through foundation apprenticeships and by relaxing some of the maths and English requirements. If we want to build the homes that our country needs, we need to get people into construction jobs and not say, “I’m sorry, you didn’t get a grade C in maths and English, so you’re not welcome on the construction site.” That makes no sense at all, which is why we are reforming how apprenticeship works, to get more people with the skills they need so that they can contribute to their families and the economy. We want those numbers going up.
Farming and Inheritance Tax
John Hayes Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins
My right hon. Friend, who has a wonderful way with words, asks a question that many members of rural communities up and down the United Kingdom are asking themselves. In fact, when the Prime Minister did regional media a couple of weeks ago, Sean Dunderdale, the wonderful presenter on BBC Radio Lincolnshire, asked him what he had got against the people of Lincolnshire. I might ask: what have this Labour Government got against the countryside?
Victoria Atkins
I will give way to my right hon. Friend and neighbour and then I will make some progress.
Sir John Hayes
As my right hon. Friend has said, the word “betrayal” is fitting because, long before the election, pledges were given, by both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, that these changes would not be made.
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member is a very experienced Member of this House, and he knows that he is meant to address the Chair, not the Front Bench.
Sir John Hayes
Mr Speaker, I know that you, as a man of integrity and honour, will be as disappointed as I am that the Government should promise one thing and then do the exact opposite.
Victoria Atkins
It is a great pleasure to have the right hon. Gentleman not just as a friend but as my Lincolnshire neighbour. He has put his finger on the point—genuinely, it is the next paragraph in my speech.
Some Labour MPs must be haunted by the phrasing from the Secretary of State during the general election campaign—because I suspect that they repeated it up and down the market towns and villages in their constituencies—when he described fears that Labour would impose this family farm tax as “desperate nonsense”. Labour candidates will have repeated that line and assured the farming families in their constituencies that Labour would never treat rural communities in that way, yet within weeks the Chancellor was planning to do exactly that.
Since then, families across the country have been trying to work out how to pick up the pieces after Labour’s family farm tax bomb. They will not forget. A farmer from Derbyshire emailed me this week to say:
“Our hard work and investment as a family has been wiped away in the stroke of a pen.”
They went on to say:
“My 60 year old husband had a bleed on the brain in June and thankfully has made a full recovery but I’ve never seen him so stressed. He doesn’t know what to do”.
Hon. Members representing seats in Derbyshire may wish to reflect on how they will respond to that. A farmer from Northumberland has written to me as follows:
“We had to talk about which one of my parents are going to die first, in front of them.”
He said that Labour is
“destroying people’s lives with this policy. Many of us are worried about the mental state of many within agriculture and are concerned that it may be the final straw for some.”
In fairness, the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who is in his place, has voiced concerns about whether his Government are listening to ordinary people about this. Will he vote for his farmers or will he toe the party line?
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Murray)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“thanks farmers for their immense contribution to the UK economy and the nation’s food security; welcomes the Government’s commitment of £5 billion to the farming budget over the next two years, the biggest budget for sustainable food production and nature recovery in UK history; acknowledges that the Government is having to make difficult decisions to protect farms and farmers in the context of the £22 billion fiscal blackhole left by the previous Government; recognises that the Government is seeking to target Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief to make them fairer whilst also fixing the public services that everyone relies on; and notes that under the changes announced in the Budget around three quarters of claims for Agricultural Property Relief, including those that also claim Business Property Relief, are expected to not pay more Inheritance Tax.”
I welcome the chance to open the debate on behalf of the Government. The Government’s commitment to farmers is steadfast. As our amendment makes clear, farmers make an immense contribution to the UK economy and to the nation’s food security. We recognise and respect the crucial contribution that farmers make to our country’s way of life.
We must also recognise, however, the state of our public services and the mess in which we found the public finances when we came into power. There was no way we could have left things as they were. Unlike the Conservatives, there was never any question of Labour ignoring the £22 billion black hole that we uncovered in the public finances. We had to bring the previous Administration’s fiscal irresponsibility to an end. We had to ensure that our country lives within its means. We had to get public services back on their feet while meeting our tough new fiscal rules, which end borrowing for day-to-day spending. That is what we, as a responsible Government, had to do.
That is why, at the autumn Budget, the Chancellor set out a number of difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare and spending. These decisions were to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and rebuild our public services. One of the decisions we took was to reform agricultural and business property relief. We chose to do so in a way that maintains significant tax relief for family farms, while fixing the public finances as fairly as possible.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman will want to explain this, Mr Speaker. The Government have argued that only 27% of farms will be affected by this measure, while the National Farmers Union says it is 75%. Will he at least give us an indication from the Dispatch Box, perhaps supported by a note in the Library of the House, showing the modelling that contradicts the NFU’s figures?
James Murray
I point the right hon. Gentleman to the letter the Chancellor recently sent to the Treasury Committee, which sets out some of these figures in detail. Some of the confusion that he and other hon. Members have encountered might come from the fact that there are different sets of data. The set of data he may be referring to relates to the total value of farms across the country, but if we are thinking about inheritance tax claims, it is right to look at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs claims data on inheritance tax. Looking simply at the value of a farm does not tell us what the inheritance tax liability for that farm may be, given that we would have to look at the ownership structure—at who owns what—and at any liabilities, and so on. That might be where some of the right hon. Gentleman’s confusion is coming from.
Tim Farron
There is something in that, and I will come to that in a moment when I talk about poverty in our countryside, when it just does not look the way people in urban communities think it ought to look.
There is no doubt that family farms are under attack, but this did not start on 4 July, and I want to go through why we have ended up where we are now. The botched transition from the old farm payment scheme to the new one is the principal source of hardship among our farmers. Let us start with the fact that the environmental land management scheme—ELMS—budget saw a £350 million underspend under the last Government, and that was not an accident. It was blindingly obvious that that was going to happen. One hill farmer I spoke to just last month told me that, as a consequence of the transition, he will lose £40,000 a year in basic payment. To replace it, he will gain £14,000 under the sustainable farming incentive. By the way, it cost him £6,000 to go through a land agent in order to get in in the first place.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Gentleman is making a profoundly important point. Not for the first time he is speaking as a Liberal Democrat, but also in a way that belies the fact that he is a Liberal Democrat, because he is genuinely committed to the countryside. He has made a point about family farms; the important thing about them is not only the arguments that he has already advanced, but the sense that they represent a continuum—an investment for the future. The reason this policy is so detrimental is because it impacts on that sense that farmers are investing now for generations to come.
Tim Farron
I am going to get to that, but the right hon. Gentleman will have to tolerate me accurately pinning blame on his side before I do so.
We were told by the last Government that they would maintain the amount of funding that we used to spend when we were in the European Union. In England, that was £2.4 billion. In one sense, and one sense only, they kind of kept that promise because it was £2.4 billion throughout that five years. However, they did not spend it, because they phased out the old scheme very rapidly, causing a great hardship, particularly to small family farms, and they brought in the new schemes far too slowly and made it very difficult for people to get into them. By the way, the people who were able to get into the new schemes were the big farmers. They were the landowners who had land agents to help them get into the schemes. So the large landowners with the bigger estates managed to get into those schemes. They are all right, broadly speaking. It is the smaller family farms—the farmers who own their own farms and the tenants—who have struggled.
It is also worth bearing in mind that there has been a little bit of inflation since 2019. The cost of running a farm has gone through the roof when it comes to feed, energy, fuel and all sorts of input costs. So the fact that we are at just £2.4 billion now, as we were five and a bit years ago, is absolute nonsense. It is important also to recognise that the grants that were available under the last Government, and now, are in reality often only available to those who have the cash flow to be able to get them in the first place.
Maya Ellis
If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will come to how we can help the farmers who will be affected by the measures.
To finish my point about devolution, as an MP in an area with huge extents of rural economy, it is critical to me that devolution reflects our rural areas as much as our metropolitan ones. I look forward to seeing how the upcoming devolution White Paper addresses that challenge. Town and parish councils really understand our rural communities and can play a bigger role in local democracy.
Sir John Hayes
The hon. Lady is making an interesting speech, and I am grateful for it. She is right that we should import less food and use Government procurement to help with that, and she is right about the inter-generational quality of family farms. Will she acknowledge that, in delivering the kind of food security that her speech implies, we cannot have the most productive farmland eaten up by large-scale solar developments and housing? We need to protect our grade 1, 2 and 3 land for the very reason she gave, because that allows us to deliver the food security that she and I both want.
Maya Ellis
As the Minister pointed out, many farms will not be affected by the measure and it will not have the impact that Opposition Members are leading people to believe.
We have an opportunity to support our farmers, as I touched on in my response to the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart). I have sat down with farmers in my community and worked through the issues. They have taken their own tax advice. For example, there is a farm in my constituency that is worth around £3.6 million, so it will be liable for around £12,000 a year in inheritance tax over 10 years. However, if we are able to increase that farmer’s profits by £20,000 a year, by reducing energy prices, increasing British-supplied procurement so that 50% of public sector food comes from those farms, and providing a better health service that ensures all members of the family can be strong and well to work, that is the opportunity. Yes, we need to make our tax structures work better—that is fixing the foundations—but the real aim and prize is increasing the opportunity for farmers, so that they have the stability, investment and real sense of purpose and mission that allows them not just to survive, but to thrive.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab)
That was quicker than I expected, Madam Deputy Speaker, so thank you. It is a privilege to speak in the debate.
Nothing goes to the heart of the health, wellbeing and prosperity of a nation more than being able to feed and look after ourselves. Britain’s farmers and our farming workforce are part of the essential infrastructure that keeps this country going. I am proud to represent a constituency with such a rich food and farming heritage. Farming is in our DNA.
I pay tribute to our farmers and farming workforce. When we talk about any other industry, we recognise the skilled workers that deliver for Britain: the steelworkers, the miners, the nurses and the doctors. We should start every debate on food and farming with the same recognition for farmers. Food security begins with the incredible work of our farmers, and I thank them. We talk about people going the extra mile to look out for each other and care for our communities; farmers do that every day. This should therefore be a welcome debate on the future of farming. It should mention farming profitability and allow the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) to talk about agri-technology and how we increase profitability. I hope that he does so shortly. Instead, what do we get? It is political opportunism from a party that should know better. I am proud to be part of the largest contingent of rural Labour MPs in Britain’s history. Labour Members were elected to protect and support our rural communities, and we will do just that. After 14 years, it is a bit rich of Conservative Members now to claim that they are backing Britain’s farmers.
Sir John Hayes
I entirely endorse what the hon. Gentleman, my constituency neighbour, said about recognising and celebrating the work of farmers, and indeed farm workers, but does he understand—I am sure that most Conservative Members understand this well—that assets and income are entirely different things? Farmers’ assets are our landscape. Their wealth is our common wealth—something that the Government have seemingly failed to appreciate by imposing a tax on farmers that confuses their ability to make a living with the asset that is essential for them to feed the nation.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), who is a fellow member of the Select Committee, and the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis). They both, in their own way, made an important contribution to the debate by giving a bit more context to it. I will vote for the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, not because it is the most elegant piece of drafting that I have seen in 23 years in the House, but because there is nothing in it with which I really disagree. It does feel, though, like a bit of a missed opportunity to move the debate onwards. I say that not as any real criticism, because it is a response to a Government measure in the Budget, which was also a bit of a missed opportunity.
It is worth taking a minute or two to pause and reflect on how things might have been done differently. We could have gone through the process that multiple Governments and Departments have gone through over the years by starting with a Green Paper or a White Paper, and looking at the way in which inheritance tax has worked, and some of the unintended consequences that it has generated. We have all heard of the super-rich buying up land and inflating the price as some sort of tax avoidance measure. I have not met a single working farmer who wants to defend that, so there was a real opportunity to do things differently. We could have built a consensus about the proper value of land, and about some stuff that is not really being spoken about in this debate.
I speak as a former solicitor. Thankfully, I never did any executory practice, but some of those who are still in practice and with whom I am in contact tell me candidly that, because there was 100% relief on agricultural land, they did not really give a great deal of thought to the valuation that went into the application for confirmation. That is bound to have had an impact on the figures on which the Government rely. Had we done things in a proper and reflective way, we would have been able to build consensus on values and thresholds, for example, and do things very differently.
Sir John Hayes
I welcome the contribution of my former ministerial colleague. Had the tax been levied on exactly the people he describes—the super-rich, and non-working farmers—few would have complained, but it has been set at the wrong level. That is why I asked for detailed modelling to be made available to the House.
Mr Carmichael
I think I just said more or less exactly that. A debate of the sort that I am talking about would have allowed for a wider debate about farming finances. We have had 70 years of very direct Government intervention in the agricultural economy through farm subsidies. Taking a step back, critical though those farm subsidies are, their net effect has ultimately been to keep farmers poor. There is now such an enormous mismatch between the capital value of the assets being farmed and the derisory return on them. DEFRA tells us that there is a 0.5% return on capital. Farmers in my constituency tell me that a £3 million farm will give them an income of about £25,000 a year. That is pretty much in line with DEFRA’s figures.
We hear about farmers working into their 80s. It is a slightly patronising and very romantic view of doughty farmers working on into their 80s because they are seized with a sense of vocation. There absolutely is a sense of vocation among farmers, but let us not forget that a lot of them work into their 70s and 80s because they have been running businesses that have had no spare money to put into a pension so that they can look after themselves in their old age.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
I am grateful for the opportunity to close this debate on the planned reforms to agricultural property relief. It has been important to hear from people on all sides of the debate and to outline the steps that the Government have taken to reach the decision on agricultural property relief. The reforms to APR are just one of the tough decisions that the Government had to take across the board on tax, welfare and spending to plug that £22 billion black hole that we inherited from the Conservatives and restore our public services.
We have had many contributions to the debate; I am sorry that I cannot respond in detail to all of them. On my side, we started with an excellent account from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis). My near neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes), spoke eloquently about the workforce issues; it is astonishing how rarely they are raised from the Conservative Benches, although there are some noble exceptions. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) and from my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Jon Pearce), who, along with a number of others, rightly raised issues of profitability in the sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours) made the important point that we are not discussing the Finance Bill today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) asked why it takes Labour Members to raise rural crime issues, because anyone who has been out talking to farmers will know that that is their top concern. From my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) we heard a powerful account of the value of rural life. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) again talked about the national health service. These are the concerns of people in rural areas.
From my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Jo White), we heard about rural crime again. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae) and from my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (John Slinger), who rightly outlined the Conservatives’ atrocious record over 14 years on public services. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) rightly dismissed the Opposition motion as a load of tripe—although perhaps that is tough on tripe.
A huge range of figures and analysis have been quoted in the debate so far. I have to say that part of the problem with those figures is that they seem to be about different things. Only one set of figures actually gives guidance on this issue, and that is the Treasury figures showing that about 500 estates a year will be affected. That is based on the hard data of the actual claims. It includes the impact of APR but also takes into account business property relief. I urge some Opposition Members to look at the Chancellor’s letter to the Chair of the Treasury Committee, which outlines all the details, taking into account those personal circumstances, the nil-rated inheritance allowances and the other capital allowances. It is available to all Members. Those figures, of course, are endorsed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility.
Independent School Fees: VAT
John Hayes Excerpts(1 year, 4 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
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Henderson. Please allow me to start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Andrew Lewer) on securing the debate. What a pity we have only 60 minutes, because there was so much more to say here. We heard some fascinating and thoughtful contributions on the matter of independent school fees and VAT.
It will not surprise anyone present to hear that I agree wholeheartedly with Government Members, and I am very pleased to hear from our Lib Dem and DUP colleagues, who support the Government’s policy to allow independent school fees to be exempt from VAT for the many valid and obvious reasons expressed by hon. Members and right hon. Members today. Those include the incredible impact that they have on communities, the partnering, their impact on so many people’s lives, and the fundamental principle of choice.
I am afraid that what we have heard from the Opposition is what we hear consistently. Perhaps we might all be sighing with relief soon when we get the inevitable flip-flopping on this policy—I do not believe for one minute that it is wholeheartedly supported by Opposition Members. It is just virtue signalling of the highest order. It is complete left-wing populist virtue signalling by the Opposition, but the British public see straight through it. This Government understand the vital role that education plays in all our lives. Just this year, school funding will total about £57.7 billion, and next year it will be £59.6 billion. I am very proud to say that that will be the highest ever real-terms spending per pupil under the Conservatives.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; I learned as a shadow Minister and a Minister that it is better to be gracious. The Minister will understand that one of the best arguments for independent schools is that they often innovate. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fareham (Suella Braverman) was involved in establishing a school that innovates and breaks new ground. From Steiner schools to Bedales to Summerhill, those schools could only exist in the independent sector. How does the Minister think that the Labour party perceives that, or does it not perceive it at all?
Nigel Huddleston
My right hon. Friend, as always, talks very sensibly about this. The independent sector is a major contributor to our ecosystem. Of course, many teachers flip flop between the different sectors; the innovation in the private sector can also help the state sector, which is one of the many benefits that we have heard about today. In terms of the broader performance in the education system, not only do the Opposition consistently talk down the economy, our constituencies and our businesses but they also talk down our teaching profession. Actually, it is incredibly successful and we should be proud of what teachers have achieved.
Our commitment to quality education has seen 89% of all schools achieve “good” or “outstanding” at their most recent inspection, an increase from 68% back in 2010 under Labour. In the programme for international student assessment, our rankings for reading and maths improved by 10 places from 2015 to 2022 to ninth and 10th across the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. Within that mix, as we all know, England performed better than Labour-run Wales or SNP-run Scotland, despite their higher funding. If we want to see what would happen in education under Labour, all we need to do is look to Wales—it is not an impressive performance. In the latest paediatric adverse childhood experiences and related life-events screener assessment of reading for 10-year-old students across 57 education systems, England ranked fourth internationally. I think we can all accept that those are good things.
This Conservative Government believe that there is a broad public benefit in the provision of education. That is why many education and training services are exempt from VAT, which includes an exemption on independent school fees. Labour does not seem to recognise the public good, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings just mentioned. It wants to charge VAT on school fees and end business rates relief for private schools, taxing aspiration and inevitably putting more pressure on state schools.
Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities
John Hayes Excerpts(4 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kemi Badenoch
I agree that we need to have a mature discussion, but I should let the hon. Gentleman know that the commission and its chair have been misrepresented on the comments about slavery. They have stated that any suggestion that they downplayed the history of slavery is “absurd” and deeply “offensive”:
“The report merely says that, in the face of the inhumanity of slavery, African people preserved their humanity and culture.”
The hon. Gentleman might be interested in the commission recommendation on new curriculum resources better to teach this complex history of the people of Britain.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I wish to report to the House and to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that 20 Members of the House, including my hon. Friends the Members for Ipswich (Tom Hunt), for Bassetlaw (Brendan Clarke-Smith) and for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), have written to the Charity Commission complaining about the Runnymede Trust’s treatment of the commissioners and its response to the report, which, frankly, reflects the outrage of those who have had their long-standing bourgeois liberal prejudices challenged. It is important that the Minister give me an assurance today that she will make representations across Government to stop the worthless work—often publicly funded—of organisations that are promulgating weird, woke ideas and that, in doing so, are seeding doubt and fear and, more than that, disharmony and disunity.
Kemi Badenoch
My right hon. Friend is right. It is important that we in Government do not inadvertently promote people who are pushing divisive narratives, and I will look into his request and see what we can do across the House and across Government.
It is interesting that my right hon. Friend, too, raises the Runnymede Trust. He might not be aware of this, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission has written an open letter to the Runnymede Trust. In its letter of 12 April, its chair states that the Runnymede Trust made “unsubstantiated allegations” about the EHRC, questioned its “impartiality and impact” and impugned its credibility. The letter also said that the Runnymede Trust showed “an apparent misunderstanding” about the EHRC’s
“mandate as set out in statute”.
I was really shocked to read the commissioners’ letter and to learn that the Runnymede Trust had even asked—or certainly implied—that the EHRC should be defunded, which is surely the opposite of what a charity focused on improving race relations should want, and the complete opposite of its objectives, which goes to the point that my right hon. Friend made.
Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Bill
John Hayes ExcerptsThursday 11th February 2021
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021 View all Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the Whole House Amendments as at 11 February 2021 - (11 Feb 2021)
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con) [V]
Though it is a mission of Back-Bench parliamentarians to bring this Palace to life, the service and sacrifices made by Ministers in pursuit of the common good and shared endeavour should be recognised and celebrated. They are responsible for the actions, successes and failures of entire Departments, so it is perhaps inevitable that some will become overwhelmed by the sheer scale of that challenge. But it is easy, too, for ministerial office to consume the holder, defining their decisions, both privately and personally. That is precisely why this Bill is so important. In life, irrespective of how grand or important we are, what we do should never trump what we are, as individuals or as a people. When all is said and done, it is the metaphysical, the beautiful and the relational that cultivates grateful perspective and lasting joy.
Whether as mothers or fathers, sons or daughters, parenthood, as a fundamental feature of our humanity, matters. As such, it is right that we reflect on how we as a nation, as a Government and as a Parliament support parenthood, opportunity and, in particular, as this Bill does, support mothers. How do we recognise and reward the service and sacrifice required to raise a child from birth to maturity, to shape the intricacies of a human soul with kindness, commitment, discipline and restraint? This Bill is a welcome start. It provides an example. For if we in Parliament get this wrong, how can we expect others to get it right?
That a woman at any stage in her life must be supported emotionally and financially from the moment her baby is conceived is surely the right thing to say, but also the right thing to do. There is a communal societal duty to support children, and indeed adults at every stage of life, from the first heartbeat before birth to the final breath. By formalising the process by which Ministers can take paid maternity leave while remaining in Government, the Bill will go some way towards eliminating any subtle or subconscious pressure placed on women in public life to abandon their pregnancy, or indeed to compromise the care they give in the early stages of life.
I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, who has taken the Bill from its conception to, we hope, its legislative adoption. By the way, this is this Attorney General who had the courage to give up her lucrative career as a lawyer in order to enter Parliament; the Attorney General who had the will to refer the case of PC Harper to the Appeal Court; the Attorney General who is reforming the practice on disclosure; the Attorney General who successfully argued recently to increase the sentences of a rapist in the Court of Appeal.
It must be noted, however—it is too often the case with Government—that artlessness or heartlessness has allowed the capture of a well-meaning and just Bill by civil servants who have clumsily excluded the word “women”. That can be put right in Committee and I will say more about that then.
The Bill can also be the beginning of a new focus on family. I recommend the work of another hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), whose manifesto to strengthen families provides a blueprint that the Government can follow to do just that. Among that report’s recommendations, alongside sensible reforms to tax and benefits, is a suggestion that we should look again at the criminal justice system.
The Bill is an important step, but it is only a step on a long journey—a journey that affirms the role of women in public life and the role that women play in families and in wider society. It is also a Bill that is proud of motherhood and, my goodness, in the mother of Parliaments, should not we all share that pride?