Rural Fuel Duty Relief

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 7th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. My constituency of Honiton and Sidmouth is predominantly rural. Residents live in villages, small towns and hamlets, rather than urban centres. It is classified as such by the Office for National Statistics—that is, as a rural or rural town constituency. Of course, the people I represent do not need to consult the Office for National Statistics to know that, because they need only look in their wallet.

A Department for Transport survey found that people living in rural villages and hamlets travel about 2.5 miles for every mile travelled by residents of an urban area. Put simply, rural life is more expensive. People pay more for journeys to school, work, the shops and essential services.

Fuel costs more in rural areas. A UK Government road fuel review found that rural motorists typically pay between 1p and 2p more per litre because there are fewer filling stations and less competition. The Countryside Alliance estimates that rural households spend between £700 and £800 more each year on fuel than their urban counterparts. And of course there are alternatives in urban settings as public transport is much more readily available. In many parts of Devon, public transport simply is not an option.

Let me take, for example, the West of England rail line in east Devon. Its services were reduced by 50% for months across the autumn, and it desperately needs investment—a passing loop—to enable services to run on time. Regular public transport on trains and buses is not an option. Many villages have no bus service at all.

The rural fuel duty relief scheme currently applies to just 21 areas across the UK. The Liberal Democrats propose that it should be expanded to 20 new areas to support motorists in rural communities. A Government assessment in 2013 concluded that the original scheme was successful in keeping pump prices down in, for example, North Devon, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Ian Roome) identified.

For isolated and rural communities across the UK it is imperative that the Government act on their past advice and extend the scheme to tackle the systemic disadvantages faced by rural residents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

Other Members, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), have asked the same question; I was going to come on to it, but I will happily do so now. As a Department, HMRC requires retailers to keep records evidencing that the 5p saving is being passed on to customers, but I would be happy to look in more detail at how that is done. Maybe we can catch a word in the Tea Room to discuss it in more detail, because the Government want to make sure that that is happening and that the 5p cut—although we can debate whether it should be higher—is passed on to consumers in full.

The Members who spoke in the debate have deep knowledge of their constituencies and have often talked about their trust in their small local businesses, many of which will be running the garages or forecourts in the more rural areas, such as the middle of the moors. I must say that the hon. Member for Strangford is doing a very honourable thing in going to more expensive garages to support the local businesses. That is a very commendable act; I must say that it is not one I always engage in, as I like to find a good price, but I commend him on it.

While fuel duty costs are broadly the same, I admit that they are slightly higher than they were in 2011. However, as foreshadowed by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), the Chancellor keeps all taxes under review; decisions on future fuel duty rates and rural fuel duty reliefs will always be made in the round and in the context of the public finances. That said, I have noted with interest all the points made today and again thank the hon. Member for North Devon for securing this debate and giving me the chance, as the Minister with responsibility, to reflect on these important issues.

A number of Members have also suggested that the Government should increase the number of areas in scope of a rural fuel duty relief—I can sense a potential Liberal Democrat local election campaign, although I would not possibly want to comment. I was going to say that neither I nor my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (James Murray)—I checked—had received any formal representations to expand the coverage of the relief since the start of this Parliament, but of course I have received some comments on that during the debate. There are no current plans to amend the list of eligible locations but, if Members strongly feel that their constituencies fall into the categories in the scheme’s rules, I will always welcome representations, and they should feel free to write to me.

[Richard Foord]

If the Minister will not consider the geographical expansion of the rural fuel duty relief scheme, with a view to the Government’s introduction of the electric vehicle excise duty in April 2018, might he consider a duty relief for the existing areas, but applying to the electric fuel duty?

[Dan Tomlinson]

That is not something that we are actively considering. That said, the details of the eVED scheme are to be consulted on in detail. We are still a number of years from its introduction, and there will be many fine decisions that need to be made in the coming months ahead of its implementation, and I note the representation that the hon. Gentleman has made today.

Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

The Minister said that this reversal of plans to introduce inheritance tax on many farming families has happened

“after listening carefully to feedback from the farming community”.

This news just before Christmas was indeed a massive relief, but given that the farming community did not say anything in December that it had not been saying for the previous 13 months, will the Government listen properly in future?

[Dan Tomlinson]

Yes, the Government will make sure that we do continue to listen.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Richard Foord Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Carmichael]

In a second—this is my punchline: “You’d better understand that if you want to develop your relationship in the back of a double cab pick-up, then that is going to cost you as well.”

[Richard Foord]

I suppose some in the farming community will not be taking up my right hon. Friend’s dating tips, but is he aware that 46% of farms are owned by single farmers and that a single farmer with 200 acres of land would have to pay 136% of their yearly profits to cover this tax bill?

[Mr Carmichael]

I am indeed aware of the general point. The specific illustration is a new one on me, but I am pretty sure, knowing my hon. Friend, that it will be well founded.

The reason this is so dangerous is rooted in the exceptionally poor return on capital investment that we get from agriculture. I have sat down with many farmers in my constituency. The average family farm in Orkney will be something in the region of 250 to 300 acres, running perhaps 100 suckler beef cattle and some sheep. The value of that property will be something in the region of £3 million, including stock, buildings and machinery, but it will return a net profit most years of something in the region of £25,000 to £30,000. Do the maths here—that is an inheritance tax liability of £400,000, which, even over the 10 years that is allowed, farmers simply will not be able to pay. As a consequence, farms are going to be sold off in whole or in part, and they will not be bought by those who want to produce food. That comes to the nub of it. The Prime Minister tells us that food security is national security, but the changes to APR will in fact diminish our ability to look after our own food needs.

The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury said that this would only affect 375 estates per year. That figure may or may not be correct—I have heard nobody outside Treasury say it is a credible figure—but it honestly misses the point. Whether it is one estate or 1,000 estates, an injustice is an injustice, and that is why I was so disappointed by the Minister’s attitude today. Let us consider who will be paying this tax and whose estates will be affected. The Treasury’s own figures tell us that 75% of those estates will belong to those who are 75 or over. That is why the anti-forestalling clause in this Bill is so pernicious and so obnoxious. The effect of the anti-forestalling clause is to trap especially those who have farmed into their 70s and 80s into the new rules unless they die before next April. I dislike the use of hyperbole, especially when we are talking about people and their lives, but the anti-forestalling clause in this Bill is downright cruel.

Those who have farmed into their 70s and 80s did it principally for two reasons. First, they were given good, sound professional advice that this was the best way to hold on to the farm and hand it on, and that was true until last October. We also have to understand—and again, this is rooted in the poor level of farm incomes—that many of them did it because they could not afford not to. In my own family, there are those who continued to farm into their 80s because if they did not, they would be left simply on the state pension and nothing else. That is why this Bill and these measures are wrong, they are dangerous, and they are a threat to our growth, our national security and our food security, and I, along with my colleagues, will be voting against them this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

The right hon. Gentleman anticipates my next paragraph. The energy profits levy should be coming to an end, but it has been extended by this Labour Government until 2030. That has caused 100 job losses from Harbour Energy, and it is causing 1,000 job losses every month, according to Offshore Energies UK. We are in this situation because the Prime Minister lacks the mettle to get rid of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. That is one job getting protected in Whitehall, but it is costing 1,000 jobs a month in Scotland. That is the Labour way, and it always will be.

On electric vehicles, this thruppence a mile probably does not sound that much to those who live in Chelsea or Kensington, but it will cost an awful lot more to those who live in Angus and Perthshire Glens. I get the politics of it: half of the entire Labour membership lives within Greater London, and the other half lives in other English cities, and in Glasgow and Cardiff. They probably think it is a tremendous wheeze to make people in my constituency subsidise the tax on the Labour membership’s electric vehicles, but people are smarter than that. People who live in the countryside can add up, and they know that this Government’s attack on their electric vehicle taxes does not add up. They are being swindled by a Labour Government.

[Richard Foord]

The hon. Gentleman’s characterisation is slightly unfair to those 80 or 90 Labour MPs who represent rural areas, and it is worth paying tribute to the speeches by the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume), and for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours). They have spoken out against this mean, callous agricultural property relief measure, and they have done a brave thing by doing so. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree?

[Dave Doogan]

I absolutely do agree. I am in full accord with those Members’ bravery on the APR, but I am not sure how that links directly to 3p a mile for electric vehicles. The point is made, though.

The preamble to the Budget was hugely challenging and had a direct consequence on the markets. It caused people to freeze employment and investment in their businesses, and it caused pensioners to cash in their pensions. I am pleased that the SNP was the first to call on the Financial Conduct Authority to investigate the Chancellor’s behaviour, and I hope that the FCA’s position changes. Despite all that, Scotland’s economy remains one of the best performing parts of the United Kingdom. Since 2007, per-person growth under the SNP has been 10.2%. That compares to 6.8% in the UK. We lead the whole of the UK, with the exception of London, for foreign direct investment, and a NatWest report recently confirmed that Scotland had one of the highest start-up rates in the UK in the first two quarters of this year.

Employment across the UK is 75%, but as I mentioned in my intervention on the Minister, unemployment in the UK has risen from 4.1% to 5.1% since this Labour Government grasped power last year. Thankfully for the people of Scotland, unemployment is 25% lower in Scotland, at 3.8%. I am sure that fact will not be lost on the good people of Glasgow East. Next month, the Scottish Government will deliver their Budget and continue to build on our success, but the SNP will not be voting for this Bill’s Second Reading. We will not be party to the injudicious and unjust damage that will be inflicted on businesses and households by the grabbing hand of Labour through this Bill. The people will have their verdict on this risible Chancellor and her bilging outflow of fiscal calamity in May 2026, specifically in Scotland and Wales, and in English councils. I, for one, look forward to the Government getting their just desserts.

High Streets: Autumn Budget 2024

Richard Foord Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)]

It is an honour to secure this debate on the autumn Budget’s impact on high streets as my first Adjournment debate, not just because it is such a vital topic but because it is a topic dear to my heart. In my maiden speech, I shared the story of helping my mum on the shop floor, and it seems only fitting that my first Adjournment debate is on our high streets.

Every night after school, and most weekends, I helped out in my mum’s gift shop. I remember chatting away to the staff, the customers and our neighbouring businesses. I remember late nights sorting out items to donate to the local charity, and the summer when I offered to run the shop myself.

I also remember what happened when the economy turned, having to pack away stock and move to smaller premises because it was that or closure. I remember helping my parents with the mortgage as a teenager, gleefully buying broken biscuits as a family and only now, later in life, realising how much work my parents put in to keep a roof over our heads and food on the table.

After many successful years, during which several premises were opened, the cost of retail and business rates, the competition from online giants and the decline in consumer spending was too much. My mum could not beat them, so she joined them and took her business online. In many ways, it was a relief for the family. It was a simpler way of continuing the business, but it was hard to see the store close 30 years after she first set up shop.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

My hon. Friend is right about how sad it is to see high street shops close, such as the one in which she used to help. We have seen local councils invest in Cullompton’s high street, but this is sadly offset by the shop closures. Will my hon. Friend make some recommendations on what the Government could do to prevent some of these shop closures?

[Victoria Collins]

The heart of this debate is about making sure we look after those businesses and the many more that could open.

My story shows why this debate is so important to me. I know that the story of our high streets is the story of our local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

I am here in my ministerial capacity, of course, but I also represent High Wycombe in the south-east, so I understand her point, and promise to take it back to the Department, and to the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury.

Levelling the playing field for the high street is just the start, and we are committed to transforming the whole system in the longer term. As we set out in the “Transforming Business Rates” policy paper that we published alongside the Budget, the Government will create a fairer business rates system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. It is important that we work in partnership with high-street businesses to get the reforms right. I thank the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted for bringing the voice of small businesses in her constituency to our proceedings.

Government officials have undertaken a series of roundtable events to understand from businesses across all sectors and sizes how they think reform of the system can best be delivered. Over 200 businesses have already given their feedback at those roundtables. The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury is leading that work and engaging with a broad range of high-street businesses, as are officials in my Department.

[Richard Foord]

I appreciate that it is perhaps the Exchequer Secretary who would know this, but will the Government make sure that the reform of business rates that they are proposing is not negative for those small businesses with a very small rateable value that do not currently pay business rates at all?

[Emma Reynolds]

Indeed. The point of the reforms is to better protect small businesses. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are already small businesses that are protected, but we want to ensure that those small businesses that are above the current thresholds are also protected, and do not pay the rates that they pay at the moment. We want to make sure that small businesses on the high street are better supported—that is the whole point of the reforms—so I can reassure him that it will not get worse for small businesses. It may be the Exchequer Secretary’s area, but I know that much, so I thank the hon. Gentleman for the opportunity to respond to that question. We look forward to further engagement with businesses over the coming months on delivering a business rates system fit for the future.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted again on her first Adjournment debate in the House—it is also the first Adjournment debate that I have responded to as a Minister—and thank her for raising this important issue. This Government have delivered the economic stability that high-street businesses need to thrive, and we are committed to delivering the business rates reforms that will support high streets up and down the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Agricultural and Business Property Relief

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you as Chair, Dr Allin-Khan. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) on securing this debate. Likewise, he is always thoughtful in his contributions, so I am always glad to hear from him and indeed the interventions that he allowed during his speech.

I know hon. Members have raised questions about the reforms that we are making, and I will try to address as many of them as I can. However, let me start by briefly reminding hon. Members of the economic context in which the decisions were taken. At the autumn Budget, we took difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare and spending

to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public services, as a result of the situation that we inherited from the previous Administration. We took those tough decisions in a way that will make the tax system fairer and more sustainable. The decision to reform agricultural property relief and business property relief was not taken lightly. The reforms mean that, despite the tough fiscal context, the Government will maintain significant levels of relief from inheritance tax, beyond what is available to others.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Will the Minister give way?

[James Murray]

I will give way maybe once or twice, but I do not have much time.

[Richard Foord]

I do not question the Minister’s difficult inheritance, but the Labour party adviser Dan Neidle suggests that the plan to slap inheritance tax on farms worth more than £1 million should be replaced with a much higher threshold with a clawback mechanism, perhaps for land over £20 million that is sold. That would tackle the Dysons of the world without affecting small family farms. What does the Minister think of that proposal?

[James Murray]

I am just about to come on to the details of the reforms that we have made to agricultural property relief and business property relief. If the hon. Gentleman waits a moment, he will see some of the reasoning behind the decisions that we took.

The Government recognise the role that the reliefs play, particularly in supporting farms and small businesses, and under our reforms that will continue. The case for reform is underlined by the fact that the full unlimited exemption, which was introduced in 1992, had become unsustainable. Under the current system, the benefit of the 100% relief on business and agricultural assets has become heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. According to the latest data from HMRC, 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. That is 117 estates claiming £219 million of relief.

It is a similar picture for business property relief. More than 50% of business property relief is claimed by just 4% of estates making claims. That equates to 158 estates claiming £558 million in tax relief.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill

Richard Foord Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 20th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for her excellent maiden speech. She spoke movingly and touchingly about her father and about dementia, and it is a theme that we must come back to in this House. It is really profound. I also share her admiration for Nigel Mills, who was an excellent predecessor, and she was very magnanimous in her comments about him. I will be sure to see her in the Tea Room to hear more about Derbyshire. Hopefully, she will not be dictating that I drink a Mojito, because I cannot bear them.

I understand that the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill is being steered through the House by the Treasury—quite right too—but I think it would be worth my saying at the outset why the Bill is a positive development in security, defence and foreign affairs.

In December 2021, amid the build-up of Russian troops on the border of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin wrote two letters. He wrote one to the United States and one to NATO. His demands included a Russian veto on NATO membership for Ukraine and the implied removal of US nuclear weapons from Europe and the withdrawal of multinational NATO battalions from Poland and from the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. That would have been completely and utterly unacceptable, and we can only surmise why he might have wanted NATO to act in this way. It is because once ground is taken it is that much harder to take back. Offence is so much more costly than defence.

It is to the issue of costs that we must now turn. The purpose of the Bill is to support the $50 billion G7 initiative launched in June, which represented a co-ordinated effort by the G7 and the EU to support Ukraine. However, with Hungary potentially blocking concerted EU action, I welcome the provision in the Bill that will ensure that future financial assistance extends to any changes in subsequent arrangements, in case we can reach broader consensus later. It is crucial that we collaborate with our EU partners to swiftly advance the agreement.

The Minister talked about the UK being a first mover in this space, which is very welcome, although states such as Estonia, Finland and Czechia worked on it prior to us, and Canada has been a driver of it too. The UK’s £2.26 billion contribution to the G7 arrangement reflects our GDP share, but as a leader in supporting Ukraine, I feel we need to go beyond simply a proportional share. After all, doing so could provide support for Ukraine in place of some taxpayers’ money. It is welcome that the UK is contributing £3 billion annually, and the Government have pledged to maintain that for as long as it takes, but as Zelensky said, why should western taxpayers foot the bill when frozen Russian assets could be confiscated and given for use by Ukraine? The Bill is a positive step, but we should talk about not just future profits generated from frozen Russian assets, but the principle—the assets themselves. The approach set out today uses only a fraction of the $300 billion available, much of which is held at Euroclear central securities depository. To support Ukraine effectively, we must go further. We should repurpose all these assets—not just the profits, but the principle.

Some critics argue that confiscating the funds would pose legal risks. They talk about sovereign immunity—an argument that is also used by some who oppose the prosecution of leaders for the crime of aggression—but sovereign immunity should also apply when thinking about the sovereignty of states. Legally, we have to think about how Russia violated international law. It violated the UN charter and blatantly breached the charter’s principle of state sovereignty. It is estimated that Russia has already caused £400 billion worth of damage—that is what will be required to rebuild Ukraine—and Russia will ultimately have to pay to make good that damage, but what use will the frozen assets be to Ukraine if Ukraine no longer exists? The goal cannot be only to rebuild Ukraine from the rubble, but to help Ukrainians prevent their country from turning to ash.

Some argue that confiscating the assets could destabilise global markets, or deter other nations from holding reserves in western financial institutions in the future, but those fears are overstated, and need to be weighed against the risk of doing nothing. The dominance of western financial systems remains robust. Alternatives such as China’s renminbi lack the stability and scale of the US dollar. Cryptocurrencies are too volatile to be a viable alternative, so the risk of inaction should be thought of in terms of what has happened in global markets since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. There was a very wobbly period, including here in the UK with the Liz Truss mini-Budget, which was partly about supporting people with their energy bills. At the time, the Government felt that they had to provide such support because of the rise in the price of gas caused by Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. Again, we cannot just suppose that doing nothing will have no consequences. There are concerns that confiscation could reduce our leverage in future peace negotiations, but this war first needs to be won. This is not the Gulf war in 1991 when frozen assets were used to compensate Kuwait; this war is still not determined.

Other states considering investing in western institutions have nothing to fear if they have no intention of invading their neighbours. As things stand, Russia has shown little interest in meaningful dialogue. To simply wait and keep the assets as a negotiating tool is naive and defeatist. By repurposing the assets now, we not only support Ukraine’s immediate needs, but reinforce the principle that aggression must not pay and that nuclear sabre-rattling is completely unacceptable.

As the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), said, the geopolitical context underscores the urgency of the moment. Trump commented in March that he sees US isolationism as attractive. When talking to the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) on GB News, he said,

“We have an ocean in between some problems… a nice big, beautiful ocean.”

With the United States facing questions about whether its support for Ukraine could be reduced or even diminish, we need to think further about what more we can do with our European allies. Acting now to unlock the full potential of Russian assets would provide Ukraine with a financial lifeline insulating it from shifts in political will elsewhere in the world.

The Bill highlights the importance of collaboration with our European partners. As the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), pointed out, UK taxpayers have already contributed over £12 billion in aid to Ukraine since February 2022, but our absence from EU defence frameworks limits our ability to co-ordinate effectively with those European allies. We could use some of the confiscated frozen assets to support joint procurement, perhaps associating with some of the frameworks, such as the European Defence Agency. Shared management of those confiscated funds would ensure transparency, accountability and maximum impact. The future profit funds, suggested as a base for the Bill, are scheduled to be disbursed between December 2024 and 2027. That timeline does not match the urgency of Ukraine’s need.

Just last weekend, we saw Russia’s largest attack on Ukrainian infrastructure in months. Russia launched 120 missiles and 90 drones. Three weeks ago, the Finnish Government took a bold step by confiscating $4.5 billion in Russian assets, making Finland one of the first countries to take decisive action. The Finnish confiscation must surely be hitting Russia where it hurts, and we should follow the examples set by Finland, Czechia and Estonia, working together to confiscate those Russian assets—including the principal, not just the interest.

The stakes could not be higher: Ukraine’s fight is a fight for eastern Europe and the west more broadly. It is a fight for the principles of democracy, sovereignty and international law that underpin global peace and security. I welcome the Bill, but it is vital that the provisions align with the goal of confiscating all Russian assets to support Ukraine financially. Let us rise to the challenge, demonstrate solidarity with Ukraine, and show leadership on the global stage and unwavering friendship to our European allies. By collaborating with those European allies to confiscate Russian assets, we can help pave the way for an outcome that makes it plain to any Government who are watching that aggression does not pay.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Tulip Siddiq)]

It is a pleasure to close this debate on what remains a very important and pressing issue. As Ukraine enters yet another difficult winter, I am proud of the consistent support that this Government have shown through not just our £2.26 billion ERA contribution, but the long-term commitments we have made to supporting Ukraine’s capacity for self-defence.

I join the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), and my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, along with my hon. Friends the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) in saying how proud I am that there is unity across the House in standing shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine at this very difficult time. This is a complex issue, and I will try to answer the questions posed by the Opposition and my hon. Friends. If I have missed out anything, I am happy to write to Members.

Before I get into the nitty-gritty of the Bill, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) for making such a powerful maiden speech. I think I am right in saying that her late mother Margaret, David, Martin and all her children would be extremely proud of their extraordinary daughter, mother, stepmother and wife. I very much welcome this “vicious dictator” to the House. We need more of them in the women’s parliamentary Labour party, so I am pleased to have her here.

The hon. Member for North Bedfordshire asked about the timing of the release of the funds. We intend to begin spending the funds early next year to ensure that the funding supports our Ukrainian allies as soon as possible. We intend to do so in three equal tranches over three financial years, starting in 2024-25, and the G7 has agreed that all ERA funds will be given out by the end of 2027. He also asked about how the UK will be repaid. We are providing the funding as part of the wider G7’s extraordinary revenue acceleration loan initiative, which means that the UK will be repaid via the extraordinary profits generated from immobilised Russian sovereign assets in the EU. The EU has already enacted the necessary regulations to operationalise the Ukraine loan co-operation mechanism, which will distribute the profits. That came into effect on 29 October, as he is probably aware.

The hon. Member asked about what will happen to the UK if the loan is not repaid. The repayment will rely on profits continuing to flow from immobilised RSAs into the EU over multiple years. The UK and the wider G7 have committed to ensuring that Russian sovereign assets remain immobilised across our jurisdictions until Russia ceases its war of aggression and pays for the damage that it has caused to Ukraine, and G7 lenders have worked closely together to design the ERA in a way that allows for repayment in a scenario in which profits cease and Russia pays Ukraine. I hope that answers his question, but I can write to him if he wants more detail.

On NATO’s spending target, there is a clear commitment from the Government to spend 2.5% of our GDP on defence, which has categorically not changed. The hon. Member will have seen in our manifesto that we will set up a path towards spending 2.5% of GDP on defence, and this will be done at a future fiscal event.

The hon. Member asked about the total value of assets and private assets. Between February 2022 and October 2023, £22.7 billion-worth of Russian assets were frozen due to UK financial sanctions regulations—a marked increase on the figure of £18.39 billion that was provided in the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation’s annual report in 2021-22. OFSI is currently analysing data on immobilised assets, and on the type and value of the assets.

Like many Members, the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary) asked about the involvement of the ERA in asset seizure. I have to make it clear that the G7’s ERA scheme does not represent the seizure of Russian sovereign assets in any way; it is about using the extraordinary profits that the EU has set aside to pay a series of loans to Ukraine. He and the hon. Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) asked about seizing Russian sovereign assets in the UK. Russia’s obligation under international law is clear: it must pay for the damage it has caused to Ukraine. The G7 agreement to use the profits from immobilised Russian sovereign assets for the loan is an important step towards ensuring that Russia pays. Although we continue to consider all lawful avenues by which Russia is made to meet its obligation to Ukraine under international law, it is important that the UK and the G7 remain focused on delivering the ERA and the benefit that it will give to Ukraine right now, because we are very conscious of the situation in which the country finds itself.

A few other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), asked about the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea FC. The Government are working hard to ensure that the proceeds from the sale of Chelsea reach humanitarian causes in Ukraine as quickly as possible. My hon. Friend might know that the proceeds are currently frozen in a UK bank account while a new independent foundation is established to manage and distribute the money, but this is something that we are working on and we are trying to move it along as quickly as possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) asked whether this was an unlimited resource loan. The negotiations remain ongoing on the details of the loan terms, but I am focused on ensuring that there is limited impact on Ukraine’s balance sheet. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) talked about the implications of the Trump victory for Ukraine. I cannot speculate on any policy decisions that the incoming Administration of President-elect Trump may make, but we have welcomed bipartisan US support for Ukraine, which has been key in the international effort. I feel that Ukraine’s security is vital for global security. If there are any other questions that I have not answered, I will write to Members. I am conscious of the time and I want to finish by thanking hon. Members across the Chamber for their contributions to the debate.

[Richard Foord]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I have heard her say that at this stage the Government intend to work on the profits rather than the seized assets themselves, but will she undertake to talk to ministerial colleagues in Finland, Czechia and Estonia to find out how they have gone about seizing and using confiscated assets?

[Tulip Siddiq]

I have listened closely to what the hon. Gentleman has said, especially with regard to other countries, and I am happy to have conversations with ministerial colleagues across different countries and find out what they are doing. This is our position for now, but this is an ongoing situation and things will move. I am happy to speak to Ministers from different countries who are using assets differently.

The ERA is an innovative scheme. It will ensure that Ukraine receives vital support throughout 2025 and beyond. It will take the money generated from Russian sovereign assets and use it to support Ukraine in the best possible way. This is further proof for us that the G7’s support for Ukraine will not falter, and that the UK will stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine for as long as it takes.

I echo the comments of my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) in thanking the people of our country for all the support that they have shown Ukraine. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope you will indulge me for one minute while I say that my own constituents of Hampstead and Highgate have opened their doors for Ukrainian refugees, giving them their homes, community spaces and education spaces, and I particularly pay tribute to my local synagogue, South Hampstead synagogue, which is providing free English lessons for Ukrainian refugees. I was very pleased to meet those people in Parliament last week.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Question agreed to.

Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Financial Assistance to Ukraine Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Treasury or Secretary of State for the purpose of providing loans or other financial assistance to, or for the benefit of, the government of Ukraine as a result of—

(a) the arrangements described as the Extraordinary Revenue Acceleration Loans for Ukraine announced on 14 June 2024 at the G7 summit in Apulia in Italy, or

(b) any subsequent arrangements that are supplemental to or modify or replace those arrangements.—(Anna McMorrin.)

Question agreed to.

Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

Ordered,

That Marie Goldman, Leigh Ingham, Gordon McKee, Charlotte Nichols and Jesse Norman be appointed to the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority until the end of the present Parliament, in pursuance of paragraph 1(d) of Schedule 3 to the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, as amended.—(Lucy Powell.)

House of Commons Members’ Fund

Ordered,

That Holly Lynch, Sir Charles Walker and Peter Grant be removed as Trustees of the House of Commons Members’ Fund and Mark Tami, Chris Elmore and Dr Danny Chambers be appointed as Trustees in pursuance of section 2 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 2016.—(Lucy Powell.)

VAT: Independent Schools

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Alicia Kearns]

I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman is repeating the lines that the Whips gave him for this morning’s Westminster Hall debate. I was not talking about SEND. It is deeply discourteous to the House to intervene on a Member with a point that is completely separate from the point that they are making; he will come to learn that in time.

As I said, the entire county of Rutland has zero available state school places for years 10 and 11. That means children will now not be able to get their education. I ask the Minister directly: what would he say to 16-year-olds who are to be forced out of their school in January with no alternative place to go and nowhere to do their studies? This is a vindictive policy, and it is absolutely wrong.

I want to touch on the contribution to local rural economies. In Rutland, education is the biggest single employer. As I said, we have 10 schools across 11 sites. In 2022-23, one secondary school in Rutland and Stamford contributed £50 million to UK GDP. It contributed £30 million to local GDP, £14 million was paid in tax to HMRC, and savings of £5.5 million were made to local schools through school places that were not taken. Some 70% of this school’s expenditure is on staffing and, with the imposition of VAT, it is forecast to make a loss for the first time ever. Jobs are being lost. When 70% of the budget is staffing, what does a school do? Cuts have to be made in people’s jobs. More than 2,000 people locally are employed directly by independent schools, and that is not to mention those working in the supply chain, whether driving buses, providing food or flowers, or working in cafés and shops. Rural economies do not have many options at the moment, and independent schools are a bedrock for them. The economic impact of these jobs on rural communities should be considered in an impact assessment, but I very much doubt one has been carried out.

Looking at the national economic picture, the Adam Smith Institute concluded that every child in independent schooling contributes £28,000 to the public finances. The average £2,700 saved on VAT makes a return to the taxpayer of 1,040%. If 5% of independent school pupils leave, the Government will generate £1 billion through this policy. If 10% to 15% of pupils leave, the Government will generate no revenue. If 25% of pupils leave, the Government will lose £1.58 billion, because they are doing something vindictive and wrong.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that people putting their children through independent school are paying twice? They pay once through their fees and once through income tax. If they are removed from the system, that will mean less money for education.

[Alicia Kearns]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. These parents have already paid into the state school system as if their child were going to state school, and they are net contributors to the local education system and the tax system, because they have chosen to ease the pressures on state schools by taking their child out. This is basic economics, and that is why the Government do not understand it.

Independent schools make a huge and optional contribution to the national teachers’ pension scheme. Some could choose to mitigate their increased costs from the imposition of VAT by opting out of the TPS. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact that this would have on the financial viability of the TPS?

Additionally, a number of independent schools in my constituency provide homes for children in foster care who would otherwise have no stability. These are the kind of schemes they will have to stop. That will again result in increased costs and impact on the state sector, which will have to pick these things up.

It is a long-standing international norm to exempt education from sales taxes. Nurseries, universities, tutors and other education providers are not included in Labour’s proposed VAT increase, although as per my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), there is a toddler tax, which any parent with a five-year-old child in nursery school will suddenly find themselves paying. It is ironic that the Labour party says that it believes in free university education for all, yet many who take up apprenticeships or go into work will not go to university. Why does Labour think that all of us who do not go to university should pay for other people to go to university, but somehow, when it comes to this issue, we should pay for others?

There is also a question about the legality. Senior lawyers, including Lord Pannick, have argued that this proposal will breach European convention on human rights rules on educational choice and access. What assessment have the Government made of the legality of this policy?

I am already seeing the damage of this policy in the heartbreaking dilemmas facing families who have contacted me for help. For some pupils halfway through their exam years, there are no places in the state system. The requests are clear: the Government must delay the implementation until at least the end of this school year, so that children are not disrupted in their education. We need to exempt those pupils in years 10 to 13, so they can take their exams without the added pressure of a school move. We need to help local authorities to boost EHCP assessments rapidly, and we need to undertake a regional assessment of available state school places to exempt pupils who live in areas with no availability, such as Rutland.

I understand that the Labour party wants to make an ideological attack on education and choice, but I urge Ministers to sit down and think this through. The richest will continue to attend private schools and absorb the increased costs, while families who sacrifice day after day will suffer. For those who are interested, I did go to my local comprehensive, and my children go to their local comprehensive, but I think it is right that we support choice for all. Tony Blair once said, “Education, education, education.” I urge the Minister to listen to the ghosts of Labour past and to do what is right for all children at both state and private schools, not what is right for reasons of ideological dogma, which is what the Labour party is currently doing day after day.

Budget Resolutions

Richard Foord Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

With four days to spend debating one single fiscal event, it would be easy to enter into Westminster village debates. Instead, ahead of the Budget I spent several days knocking on doors in villages in my Devon constituency to hear what rural residents wanted the Chancellor to announce. The feedback I got was plain: they cared not about jibes from the Dispatch Box but about saving our public services and infrastructure, including our roads, which are crumbling before our very eyes—a metaphor for public services in general. It is little wonder that people ask me, “If this Government cannot even stop the roads from falling apart, how on earth can they claim that things are getting better?” It is little wonder that the erosion of our roads has been mirrored by the electoral erosion of the Conservative party. Many of the people I spoke to in Devon regard this Government as having little left in the tank. It is little wonder that conspiracy theories are on the rise: people in the west country could be forgiven for thinking that potholes are a deliberate, affordable alternative to 20 mph signs and speed bumps.

This Budget was such a disappointment. There are more holes in it than in the A373 between Honiton and Cullompton. It contained little in the way of support for frontline NHS and care services. It is ironic that when national insurance was introduced by a Liberal Government in 1911, its purpose was partly as a safety net to catch people experiencing ill health. The Liberal Government who introduced it required contributions from employers and the state, as well as the individual.

The Chancellor’s flagship measure—the national insurance cut—failed to deliver any help for pensioners or those on fixed incomes in the way that a rise in the income tax threshold could have done. Instead of long-term investment, the Government chose a series of quick patch-up jobs that brush over the latest crisis, rather than taking the time to fill in their holes properly. The Government need to understand that funnelling every last available penny they could scrape together into a national insurance cut will not turn things around.

The average pothole-related breakdown will set drivers back around £440. That is the same amount that someone might have got back from this national insurance cut. One trip down a poorly maintained road and all those savings are gone in a bang, as the driver shreds a tyre on the edge of a crater. I am reminded of driving through the streets of former Yugoslavia in an Army Land Rover 20 years ago, where avoiding a collision in Kosovo required a Land Rover Defender; increasingly, it is also a requirement in Culmstock, Colyton and Combe Raleigh.

If small businesses are the engines of our local economy, investment in our road network is the lubricant in rural areas such as Devon. The roads are the ribbons that connect our towns and villages. In recent years, many have become impassable. Almost every single week, my postbag is flooded with correspondence about potholes. I fear that if I were to plot them on a map, those reported across mid and east Devon would hardly leave any road left. They are certainly one of the things that people are most annoyed about. That is why the £6.6 million announced for Devon’s roads is nothing more than a smokescreen. It goes nowhere near what is genuinely required to fix the underlying problem.

It is not just me saying that. The Conservative leader of Devon County Council, John Hart, who is ultimately responsible for the maintenance of our roads in Devon, says the funding is a “drop in the ocean”. He went on to say that while the council was given an extra £9.5 million for roads last year, £7 million of that repair money was immediately eaten up by inflation. Last April, the council was forced to announce that it only had the capacity to maintain priority roads, allowing other vital roads to endure a “managed decline”. This is a shameful state of affairs. It says something when getting on a horse and riding over the rolling hills of Devon may be the best way of traversing our county for the first time in over 100 years. Figures from the Department for Transport lay the issue bare—these statistics just cannot be argued with. Just 18.6 miles of roads in Devon had improvement work done in the year to March 2023, down from 273.6 miles five years ago, all under the Conservatives’ watch.

The Budget was a missed opportunity. The Government know that they have lost the race and are now simply limping to the finish line. The people of Devon deserve so much better. They demand better. They know that, in the rural areas of the west country, the only way to get it is to vote Liberal Democrat.

UK Economy

Richard Foord Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bim Afolami]

I do not agree with the hon. Lady. I will not repeat everything I just said to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders), but this Government and this Treasury are sticking to our plan for growth. That is all put at risk by the Labour party.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

The Office for Budget Responsibility assessed Boris Johnson’s trade and co-operation agreement, which sets out the trading relationship between the UK and the EU, at the beginning of last year, and it said that the TCA has reduced long-run productivity by 4%. Why does the Minister think that is?

[Bim Afolami]

We built on the trade and co-operation agreement through the Windsor framework, and the Opposition do not propose to change it. Indeed, the TCA is fundamental to the stability of our relationship with the European Union, and I do not think the country would benefit from unpicking it once again.

Hospitality Sector: Fiscal Support

Richard Foord Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered fiscal support for the hospitality sector.

We always say that it is a pleasure to see you in your place, Ms Bardell, and it is this morning; thank you for looking after us. I thank colleagues from all points of the compass for their support on a subject that is close to my heart: fiscal and other support for the hospitality sector—by which I mean on-trade pubs, restaurants, cafés, hotels, and bed and breakfasts. I am grateful to the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, the Scottish Beer and Pub Association, the Scottish and UK hospitality organisations, Castle Leisure Group, Greene King, and several dozen businesses in rural and urban Stirlingshire for helping me to prepare for the debate. I also thank Paul Anderson and Matt Gower from my office, as well as the House of Commons Library, which has produced a number of useful briefings that I commend to colleagues.

This issue is not easy, but I will be up front with colleagues. Am I looking for special treatment for the hospitality sector? Yes, I am: these businesses need and deserve it. They need it because of the unprecedented economic times that we are living through, and they deserve it because they are a part of not just our economy, but our society; they are community hubs at a time when we face an epidemic of post-covid loneliness, and they contribute to our sense of place and keep our high streets busy. As well as urban Stirling, I represent a number of rural communities, which turn into dormitories once the pub goes. That is not a sustainable future for those communities. Hospitality businesses promote social mobility. How many of us—myself included—had a first job waiting tables, pulling pints or doing dishes? Hospitality provides flexible employment that keeps a lot of people engaged in the workplace who might otherwise not find jobs that suit them. These are good, sustainable jobs, and great careers.

Hospitality businesses are also significant for the economy. The stats are vital: the beer and pub sector accounts for 936,000 jobs and contributes £26 billion to the UK economy; in Scotland, it accounts for 62,000 jobs and £1.8 billion in tax receipts. According to UKHospitality, the wider hospitality sector employs 3.5 million people in one form or another, and generates £54 billion in tax receipts. These businesses are at the sharp end of an economic crisis that is not of their making. They are at the sharp end of the post-covid slump, an energy cost spike and insurance cost rises. They face labour shortages and costs due to Brexit. Now, I do not blame Brexit for everything, but it has made everything worse, and we need to deal with its consequences, which hospitality businesses are living with right now. They also have lower footfall, because in the cost of living crisis everybody is cutting back on discretionary spend. They are dealing with a perfect storm, and they need more help.

During covid, we proved that we can act fast, as we did with the VAT cut and eat out to help out, with all its issues; we demonstrated that we could move fast when a demonstrated emergency was under way. For our hospitality businesses, there is still an emergency under way. I am supportive of the Scottish Government, although I am not part of it; I am clearly in opposition here, though I hope I am a constructive Opposition Member. I am bringing some ideas to the Minister, and look forward to his response. I am also not a part of Stirling Council. I am aware that budgets in all places are under real pressure, but I am calling for support because I am dread afeard that, unless we act, a number of these good, sustainable businesses will not make it through to the better times, when they do come, and that all those revenues and social benefits will be lost. Across my constituency, there are a number of great businesses, but they need help to make it through. It is up to all of us, in all our places, to put the badges to one side and work together to support these crucial organisations.

What am I calling for? I will be brief to allow colleagues to speak. First, if hon. Members remember only two words from me today, they should be “cut VAT.” I would cut VAT on food, soft drinks and alcohol to 5%. Of course, that is a big ask. I know the fiscal situation for the UK, Scotland and local government, but cutting VAT would be a clean and immediately effective way of supporting those businesses’ bottom line. It would be directly linked to turnover, so if a business is not doing much business, it will not get that much benefit, and if it is, it will. It would not require any complex architecture or bureaucracy and would not need much to administer. It would be an effective way to boost growth and help these businesses survive.

In other countries, a VAT cut would not be unusual. VAT on accommodation is 10% in Austria, 6% in Belgium and 9% in Cyprus. VAT on restaurants is 13% in Croatia, 5% in Hungary and 10% in Italy. Of course, it is not quite like for like, but the UK is taxing this sector far more than other European countries do, and I think we need to boost and celebrate it, not tax the bejesus out of it from all parts of Government.

Speaking of which, we need business rates reform. To be clear, I was glad that the UK Government temporarily cut business rates in England. I called for the Scottish Government to pass that on, and I regret that they did not, but let us remember that it was just a one-year suspension and the actual problem is that business rates are not fit for purpose in any of our countries. That outdated system is creating perverse incentives for a lot of good businesses. Of course, local government needs to be supported, but we need to find a better way to do that. Tom Arthur, the Scottish Minister, has been proactive in engaging with business across Stirling and elsewhere. He acknowledges the problem—but business rates are crippling a lot of businesses, and we need urgent reform in all our countries.

[Richard Foord (Tiverton and Honiton) (LD)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point about business rates reform. I have just pulled up the Midweek Herald, in which a pub that closed fairly recently, the Honiton Inn, is advertised at £395,000, but before the advert says anything about the pub, it says, “Business rates may apply”. Does he agree that business rates on pubs are deterring new tenants from taking over?