Farming and Inheritance Tax

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

That is not how I interpret the comment, but I make no apology for the fact that we want to support farmers, as well as making our energy transition and building homes for people across the country. We need to ensure that we are achieving all the goals that the people of this country elected us to achieve.

I want to say more about data, because several Members have raised the subject. As I have explained a few times now, the DEFRA data shows the asset value of farms in England, but it is not possible to accurately infer a future inheritance tax liability from data on farm asset values. Any inheritance tax liabilities that farming assets may face will be affected by who the owners are, the nature of the ownership, how many owners there are, any borrowing that they have, and how they plan their affairs.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Minister talks about data. Given the massive discrepancy involved, and the impact of this policy, if the data shows in 12 months and 24 months that the Government have got this catastrophically wrong, will they revisit the policy and do a U-turn?

[James Murray]

When we approach policies in government we test them thoroughly and consider the details and the data, and we ensure that any conclusions we draw are based on the correct set of data, which is part of the conversation that we are having today. I do not know whether it is due to mischief or misunderstanding, but there is a certain focus on the total value of farms rather than on inheritance tax liabilities. The data on inheritance tax liabilities is the correct data to look at when evaluating the impact that the policy may have.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Richard Tice Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)]

In the recent autumn Budget—it might feel like a long way away, but it was only a few weeks ago—the Chancellor made a decision to change the system of employer’s national insurance contributions. The purpose was to make the largest businesses make a contribution to fund the public services on which working people and businesses rely.

As part of the changes to national insurance, we have increased the employment allowance to £10,500, explicitly to protect small businesses. The changes mean that a quarter of a million employers will see the amount of national insurance that they pay get cut.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Does the hon. Gentleman seriously consider a GP surgery in my constituency with seven doctors and six members of staff to be one of the largest businesses, even though it is suffering from tens of thousands of pounds in extra costs and will have to lay people off, which will reduce capacity?

[Mark Ferguson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, because he makes an excellent point that I was hoping to come to later in my speech. The previous Government cut national insurance, and do you know what was also cut? The number of GPs in my constituency. It is more complicated than Members pretend; it is not “national insurance vs. GPs”. If it were that simple, I would have more GPs, not less, in Gateshead Central and Whickham. I would urge those who were enthusiastically cheerleading the previous Government to take a moment to think about that.

VAT: Independent Schools

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Education is a charitable endeavour.

[Mr Brash]

The hon. Gentleman was briefly the candidate in my constituency. Given the result, it is rather a shame that he did not continue to be so.

As I understand it, the Opposition could have tabled a motion about anything for today. They could have tabled a motion about the crisis facing children in social care, slowly bankrupting local authorities such as mine. They could have tabled a motion about child poverty which results in 1,500 Hartlepool children not having a bed to sleep in tonight. They could have talked about the scandal of children arriving at school hungry, the 10% cut to our further education sector, the drop of a third in our apprenticeships, and the school cuts that have cost Hartlepool schools £1.7 million in real terms since 2010. But no, they chose to talk about this—the removal of a subsidy that the 93% pay for the 7% who want to send their children to private school. It is wrong and the myths attached to it are ridiculous.

I do not have the time to go into the many things that I would like to say, but I want to finish on one simple point: I am sick and tired of hearing people talk as if the parents of aspiration and the parents who work hard are only those who want to send their children to private school. All parents aspire for their children, all parents work hard for their children, and we stand up for all parents and all children in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The tragedy of this debate is the vitriolic negativity, when all of us could surely unite in our desire to improve the education of all. The Government could have done something so different. They could have said to the independent sector, “You’re doing well, chaps. Can you give us a bit of help? Can you work with us? Can you share more of your expertise, your wisdom, your success and your facilities? In particular, can you help with regard to special educational needs, where the independent sector is doing so well at no cost to the taxpayer?” I think that would have gained universal enthusiasm and support.

[Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Richard Tice]

No, we are short of time.

As a former governor of an independent school, I know that that approach would have been welcomed by the independent sector. Instead, the choice that the Government have made will do the opposite of what they intend. It is not going to raise anything like the funding they think it will: almost 100,000 children will leave the independent sector, many of whom have special educational needs, so it will earn almost nothing.

I spoke earlier about the unintended consequences of this policy. A parent in my constituency has written to me. She has two children with special educational needs at private school, and she cannot afford the VAT, so they are going to go into the state system. The nearest place is an hour away, so now the local authority is going to pick up the cost of the taxi service of over £20,000 per child. Those are the unintended real-world consequences of this choice by this Government. Most shamefully of all, because there is such a lack of capacity in so many areas and so many local authorities, that choice is going to result in bigger class sizes. That means more pressure on hard-pressed teachers in the state system, at a time when we are trying to ease that pressure. This choice is going to damage the education of many hundreds of thousands of children—exactly the opposite of what is intended.

I say to the Minister and his Government that they could choose differently. They could pause this policy, work with the independent sector and gain much more universal support. Instead, we have legal challenges going ahead. As I finish, I ask the Minister to answer this simple question: if those legal challenges end up in the European Court of Human Rights and it rules that the policy is unlawful, will his Government comply with that ruling?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Baggy Shanker.

Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Exemptions

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Caroline. What irony that the Government have sent a Minister to listen to these debates who went to a private school. I wonder whether his parents would have been able to afford the extra 20%.

However, as the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth) said, this is about the education not just of those at independent schools, but of the hundreds of thousands in the state system. Their education will also be damaged because of the capacity crisis. Class sizes will grow. There is an SEN crisis everywhere. Local authorities are in panic; headteachers are in panic; parents are in panic and, most shamefully of all, children are panicking. Will they be removed from their school in the middle of a school year, be taken from their friends and have their education damaged? It is extraordinary.

I give one example: I have had a letter from a constituent who has two children with SEN provision. She cannot afford the extra 20% so she has to put her children into the state system. There is no capacity within an hour’s drive, so she has a quote from the local taxi firm. The cost to the local authority will be over £20,000 in taxi fares per child. That is not only damaging to the education of children; it is an economics of utter tomfoolery and madness.

Winter Fuel Payment

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Last Friday in Boston I was stopped by a pensioner, a lovely lady called Elizabeth, who shook my hand and burst into tears—uncontrollable tears of genuine fear. She represents more than 22,200 pensioners in Boston and Skegness who will lose out through this cruel policy. It was the fear of being cold this winter—not knowing how cold—and the fear of what will happen to energy prices in October. How high will they go in January? It was the unbelievable fear of not knowing whether she will see the end of winter, because that is the reality: older, colder people die early.

We have heard about choices a lot today. It is true that this Government have made a calculated deliberate, heartless, cruel choice to enrich their union paymasters, to enrich public sector workers with no requirements on productivity, to enrich well-paid train drivers and to impoverish pensioners. Let me tell this House that voters will not forget and they will not forgive.

Budget Responsibility Bill

Richard Tice Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker; congratulations on your election.

The Liberal Democrats understand the importance of a stable economy to the wellbeing of our nation, and we will support the Bill as it makes its way through Parliament. We have seen the effects of the chaos and uncertainty wrought by the previous Conservative Government in their horrendous mismanagement of the economy, and we know that future prosperity can be built only on a firm foundation.

The former Member for South West Norfolk may have intervened to prevent officials from using the phrase “disastrous” mini-Budget in the King’s Speech document, but this was a disaster for which many millions across the country continue to pay the price. Liberal Democrat MPs have been returned to this House in greater numbers than ever before, because we understand how much our constituents have suffered from the increase in mortgage payments, higher fuel bills and escalating food prices that resulted from the disastrous mini-Budget. We will do all we can to tackle the cost of living crisis being felt by so many, and we welcome the new Government’s commitment to building a strong platform for economic growth. We welcome the Bill as a symbol of strengthened fiscal responsibility and transparency, which we hope will prevent a repeat of the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-Budget under Liz Truss from ever happening again. After the turmoil of the outgoing Conservative Government, we welcome the seriousness of intent from this Government as they rebuild trust with the financial markets and the business and financial sector as a whole.

The financial irresponsibility and unfunded tax cuts in the mini-Budget sent mortgage rates soaring and continued a pattern of low growth, falling living standards and business uncertainty under the Conservatives. Millions of people across the country continue to see the devastating impact of their disastrous governance in their food and energy bills and to feel its heavy burden in their personal finances.

A recent report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that 320,000 people have been pushed into poverty because of mortgage interest rate rises caused by the incompetence of the previous Conservative Government. It has been devastating to hear the stories of so many households dragged into poverty, and to know that so many families are struggling under the worst cost of living crisis in a generation. It is painful to reflect on the thousands of people who were hoping to make progress in their life and improve the circumstances of their family, but find themselves pulled backwards by the weight of the costs now piled upon them. The IFS report tells us that the number of adults unable to keep their home warm enough increased from 1.8 million in 2020 to 4.6 million in 2023. The IFS attributes that increase to the rise in mortgage interest rates during that period. The statistic lays bare in shaming detail the enormous and ongoing impact that the Conservatives’ disastrous mini-Budget had on all our lives.

The positive responses that this Bill has evoked from the broader business and finance sector are indicative of the desire for industry stability. We welcome the engagement from economists and industry experts, who advise of the Bill’s beneficial impact on confidence in public finances. Even the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), has acknowledged that he is minded to support the Bill. We will carefully scrutinise its details to ensure that it will achieve its intended aims. In particular, we will look closely at the threshold for fiscally significant measures, set out in the legislation as measures worth at least 1% of GDP or approximately £30 billion, and will consider whether that provision could be circumvented by Government announcing major changes just below that threshold.

The proposed terms set a substantial threshold that would have to be reached before the OBR could insist on intervening. That raises questions about how easy it would be for a Government to skirt the rules and avoid scrutiny from the watchdog. We understand that the bar has been set relatively high to prevent a large-scale irresponsible fiscal event, such as the disastrous mini-Budget, but we are aware of the limitations that places on the Bill. In particular, an announcement could have a largely indirect fiscal effect—it could have an impact on the economy, but come at a small up-front cost to the Government—and therefore not trigger the fiscal lock. We therefore ask the Chancellor: can a GDP measure alone adequately capture the impact of a spending or taxation measure on the economy? Should the Government examine the possibility of using additional criteria in establishing the threshold?

We must consider the wider context in which the Conservatives’ damaging mini-Budget came about to determine whether the measure that we are debating would be sufficient to prevent such a disaster ever happening again. The Conservatives’ period in government, and the last two Parliaments in particular, were characterised by a distaste for the institutions that provide checks and balances on power, and efforts to actively undermine them. Throughout the past few years, we have seen attacks on the judiciary, the civil service, the BBC, the Bank of England, the EU and any British citizen who dared express the view that the Government’s botched Brexit deal was doing enormous damage to our economy. We have seen the provisions of international treaties airily discarded. Conservative Ministers even illegally prorogued Parliament. Even now, in the Conservative party leadership contest, it seems that the one thing all candidates agree on is a promise that the UK will leave the European Court of Human Rights.

The disastrous mini-Budget emerged from the philosophy that the power of central Government, exercised by successive Conservative Prime Ministers, can trump that of other vital independent institutions, and it is precisely that philosophy that we must never again see from Government. The ongoing failure of the former Member of Parliament for South West Norfolk to apologise for the disastrous mini-Budget underlines the fact that she thinks she was both entitled and correct to unleash it on an unsuspecting country that voted for neither it nor her.

Truly addressing the causes of the systemic failure that led to the disastrous mini-Budget will take a great deal more than this Bill. It requires the Government to work alongside institutions that exist to support and challenge their decision making. It requires the Government to submit their proposed measures to parliamentary scrutiny. The Liberal Democrats think that reforms devolving power to local bodies to decentralise decision making would also strengthen our ability to take long-term decisions in the national interest. This Bill and other measures are encouraging signs of this new Government’s intention to ensure that those in power act with more integrity and transparency, but ultimately, unless all Governments are committed to upholding the principles of fiscal responsibility, transparency and sound governance, the risk of future disasters such as the mini-Budget will remain.

In our general election manifesto, we set out the need for every fiscal event to be accompanied by an independent forecast from the OBR. More broadly, we wish to see the Government foster stability, certainty and confidence by managing the public finances responsibly, getting national debt falling as a share of the economy and ensuring that day-to-day spending does not exceed the amount raised in taxes. We must make the tax system fairer by asking some of the wealthiest companies in the world to pay their fair share—the big banks, the oil and gas producers and the tech giants—instead of adding even more to the burden on hard-working families. To improve stability and growth, we need to fix our broken trading relationship with Europe and set up an industrial strategy, helping to make Britain one of the most attractive places in the world for businesses to invest. We must work in partnership with responsible, sustainable businesses to tackle the climate emergency, and spur the growth that is needed for investment in health, social care, education and other essential public services.

Responsibly managed public finances are essential if we are to have the stability, certainty and confidence that drive economic growth, and they are vital in getting mortgage rates under control, too. Under the outgoing Conservative Government, we found out just how much pain and damage can come from fiscal irresponsibility. The Liberal Democrats want a thriving British economy that provides jobs and opportunities and is attractive to businesses and investors. We welcome this Bill as a useful step in that direction that will help to improve long-term stability and responsible economic management.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Ghani)]

Does the point of order relate to the business being discussed right now?

[Richard Tice]

It relates to the business of the day.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Just for reference—I know that this can be tricky for new MPs—points of order must be relevant to the business under way, or be made during the transition between items of business. However, I know that that is not easy for new MPs, and I am grateful to the Member for giving notice of the point of order, so he may proceed.

[Richard Tice]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We are hearing a lot about transparency, accountability and scrutiny, but the business of the day, proposed by the Leader of the House, includes a plan to abolish the European Scrutiny Committee. When this country voted to leave the European Union, we voted to take back control. How can we scrutinise the Government’s activities and negotiations with the European Union if the Government abolish the European Scrutiny Committee? Surely that is completely in contrast to what the Government proposed in their manifesto, and to these discussions about scrutiny.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Once again, I am grateful to the Member for giving us notice of his point of order. It is for the Government to decide what motions should be tabled and whether there should be consultation. Any Select Committee can scrutinise matters within its remit, which may include matters relating to the European Union. The remit of the European Scrutiny Committee, as defined in Standing Order No. 143, is to examine European Union documents—broadly speaking, proposals for European Union legislation or policy. It is for the House, not for the Speaker, to decide whether the Committee still fulfils a useful function, now that the UK is no longer a member of the EU.

I call Martin Rhodes.