Oral Answers to Questions
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I wish His Majesty the King a very happy birthday.
The Chancellor, the Secretary of State and the Food Minister claim that their family farm tax will affect only a quarter of farms, yet after informed questioning by the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association and Conservative Members, the Minister has now admitted that the Government need to check their figures. Should the cost of the family farm tax to farming families not have been checked before the Budget?
Steve Reed
The data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is crystal clear: three quarters of farmers will pay nothing as a result of the changes. Family farming will continue into future generations, as it should.
Victoria Atkins
The Secretary of State perhaps needs to ask his Food Minister why he said at the Agricultural Industries Confederation conference that the Government are checking the figures. Let me help the Secretary of State out. He can explain the veracity and accuracy of his figures next week, when thousands of farmers come to Westminster to rally against the family farm tax, the delinking of payments, the hike in national insurance and other tax hikes on working farms in the Budget. Will he come?
Steve Reed
It is very important that the Government listen to farmers, and of course we will do so, but I know that farmers are reasonable people. They will want to look at the facts and, like everybody else, if they drill into the HMRC data they will see that three quarters of them will end up paying no more under the new system than they do today.
Rural Affairs
Victoria Atkins Excerpts(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for holding this important debate, and for welcoming me to my new role. From the arable fields outside my front door to the cattle and horticulture that stretch from the fens, the wolds and the marshes to the coast, my constituency feeds the country. I am delighted and determined to bring some of my county’s common sense and love of the countryside to this important portfolio. On Armistice Day, I pay tribute to the fallen, and particularly to the farmers who stayed behind to feed the nation in wars gone by.
This is a critical time for our rural way of life. After years of unforgiving weather, rising commodity prices and more crop and livestock diseases, our farmers now face a new threat: a city-dwelling, socialist Government who do not understand or care for the rural way of life. The evidence is there in Labour’s first Budget, for which it had 14 years to prepare. [Interruption.] The Back Bencher who is waving his arms around may want to listen to this. In this Budget of broken promises, the Chancellor laid careful plans to break the farming sector, the wider rural economy and our food security. Farmers look after 70% of the UK’s land. They are the keystone of our rural communities. When they struggle, our rural economy is weakened and our food security is put at risk.
Today, as the consequences of this Budget are becoming clearer, I will focus solely on the rural economy, but I make this promise to the Secretary of State: in the future, I will be pressing him and his Government on rural infrastructure, flooding, crime, healthcare, broadband and mobile signals, the solar and wind industries and other matters that affect our countryside, because the impact of this Budget and the choices Labour has made will be felt for years after his expensive wellies have worn out.
I am going to focus on three broken promises by Labour; I am going to make it simple for them. The first broken promise for farming families is the removal of the tax relief that has meant families can pass on their farms to the next generation: agricultural property relief and business property relief. These are not loopholes, as they were described by the city-dwelling Chancellor, but careful tax policy planning developed over many years to prevent family farms and businesses from being split up and sold off. Of course we support efforts to root out abuse of the tax system, but the way in which the Chancellor has designed this policy means that it is tenant farmers and farmers in the middle who will struggle, not the very wealthiest.
This morning, I asked farmers on social media to send me details of how the policy will affect them and their businesses, and it makes for anguished reading. Farmers are furious, anxious and even distressed about the changes. They feel that the Government are coming after them and their families’ livelihoods, when all that they and their ancestors have done is work hard, follow the rules and feed us. I have been inundated with messages about tenant farmers, whom the Government seem to have forgotten. A Welsh landowner has contacted me to say that this change in policy will mean that he must tell six multigenerational farming families on his land that he will have to sell their farms to pay Labour’s family farm tax. As he put it,
“they will lose their homes, businesses and their children’s futures”.
In winding up the debate, can the Minister please explain what those six tenant families are to do when their farms are sold?
An example of how the measure will affect landowning families is provided by a family who have worked their 500-acre farm for four generations. The farm is owned by the mother, who is in her 70s, and her two sons, who are in their late 40s and early 50s, their father having died a few years ago. They make an annual income of around £45,000. When the mother dies, the sons will face an inheritance tax bill of at least £870,000. There is no way in which they can pay that bill without selling their farm. Could the Minister advise the House how that family are to pay Labour’s tax bill without selling their farm?
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The right hon. Lady has obviously had lots of letters and emails. Has she had a single one from any farmer who thinks this is a good idea? I have not had any from my constituency of Boston and Skegness.
The Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs (Daniel Zeichner)
We have—plenty!
Victoria Atkins
You couldn’t make it up, could you? This is what is so worrying. This is why, at the beginning, I talked about a Labour Government who do not understand and do not care, and it is exactly this attitude from the Government Front Bench that farmers and their families are seeing. In answer to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice), I say as a former Treasury Minister that if there is evidence of abuse, of course the Treasury and the Chancellor must go after that, but given the way the Government have designed this policy, it is going to go after the hard-working families that look after our farms in our great county.
John Glen
My right hon. Friend and I have been Treasury colleagues. Officials often put forward this reform in the run-up to fiscal events, and she, like me, has resisted them. Will she reflect on the fact that significant landowners will have sophisticated tax planning regimes in place, that a large number of very small hobby farmers will be excluded, and that those who will be hit are modest family farmers? Even when those family farmers need to raise a relatively modest amount over 10 years, the impact of securing that funding is beyond them, given the margins they get from farming. Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the fact that this is, without doubt, a Treasury hit-and-run? The Secretary of State flatters himself to think he has secured the overall budget, but he has left farmers in a far worse state. [Interruption.]
Victoria Atkins
My right hon. Friend makes an important point about our experience as Treasury Ministers. Labour Back Benchers are shouting “Give way!” because they do not like hearing the truth. They made this choice; we chose not to go down this route.
There are many ways in which we can support our family farmers, and I have had the pleasure of having a cup of tea with many of them around their kitchen table after they have shown me their farm. Labour Front Benchers lack such experience, because their constituencies are all situated in the city.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Victoria Atkins
I promise that I will give way in a moment.
As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness and my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) have both said, the sense of betrayal is palpable. As a fifth-generation farmer put it to me this morning,
“Would you want to work somewhere that you knew over your lifetime was going to be taken away bit by bit?”
Another has urged us to
“fight this vindictive, illogical and ideologically driven tax”.
Just before I began my speech, in response to the Secretary of State’s speech, I received this message from another farmer:
“So long as mum dies before March 2026, we’re okay”.
Yet the farming Minister and the Secretary of State seem to think that these worries are exaggerated. Indeed, the farming Minister got a ripe old reaction when he said words to that effect at today’s poultry conference.
When we warned in June that a Labour Government would do this, the Secretary of State said that such warnings were “desperate nonsense” and accused us of lying. This followed the assurances he gave in December that Labour would not change this policy. So that is a broken promise. He is doing the exact opposite of what he said. How can rural communities trust him in the future?
The Secretary of State has given some helpful advice to farmers, however. He has told them that they will have to
“learn to do more with less”.
Labour has not said the same to train drivers, resident doctors or their other union friends. Indeed, pensioners and family businesses will be the ones paying for these public sector pay rises.
Liz Saville Roberts
Will the right hon. Lady join me in asking the Secretary of State, who did not allow me to intervene, whether the confirmation that agricultural funding for Wales is to be Barnettised means that the allocation will drop from 9.4% to 5.6%? According to the Farmers Union of Wales, that is a drop of £146 million and more. This will also affect Scotland and Northern Ireland, so we need clarity on this issue for Welsh farmers.
Victoria Atkins
I completely agree with right hon. Lady. If the Secretary of State would like to intervene on me, he can answer her intervention. Answer came there none.
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend is a very clever former Treasury Minister and I am not, so perhaps she can help me to reconcile these two statements. In essence, and in true Harold Macmillan phraseology, the Secretary of State told us that farmers have never had it so good, yet his advice is that they will have to learn how to do more with less. I cannot make those two things add up. Can my right hon. Friend?
Victoria Atkins
No. What is more, the NFU, the Tenant Farmers Association and the Country Land and Business Association cannot make them add up either.
Mark Garnier
The Secretary of State talked about the fact that the price of agricultural land is artificially high because of tax avoiders trying to avoid paying inheritance tax. The implication of the proposed measures would be that the price of agricultural land will fall. That may sound attractive to people who are trying to come into the market, but has my right hon. Friend considered the number of farmers who have mortgages against their land? They could find themselves in negative equity as a result of the pushing down of the price of agricultural land.
Victoria Atkins
Very much so, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) and for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) for their accurate and insightful interventions. Not only do some farmers have mortgages, but we know tenant farmers worry that their farms will be sold off, so that the landowners can enter into what some call a “greenwashing” agreement with corporates, in order to plant trees and gain access to green funds. One should not make the mistake of assuming that this ill-thought-through policy will lead to cheaper land prices: the maths on that is almost as bad as the Chancellor’s cockeyed accounting with her economic inheritance.
Let me tackle the ideology of this policy, reiterated by the Secretary of State during this debate, which is matched by Labour’s incompetence. First, the Chancellor herself does not seem to know the threshold at which her policy kicks in and whether spouses can transfer their allowances. Indeed, the Secretary of State does not seem to know that either. The Chancellor has said that the allowances can be transferred, yet Treasury documents supporting her Budget say that they cannot. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister clarify whether the Treasury’s documents are wrong or the Chancellor is wrong?
Secondly, will the Minister explain why this Government have targeted only British-owned farms and businesses with this tax hike? Companies operating here but owned overseas, private equity-owned businesses and public companies listed on stock markets will not have to pay Labour’s tax; it is just British families.
Thirdly, the Chancellor—and, indeed, just now, the Secretary of State—gave assurances that only a quarter of farms will be affected, but that is not backed up by the data from the Secretary of State’s own Department. DEFRA figures show that, in fact, these changes will affect two thirds of farms—some 66%. Will the Minister explain that discrepancy and what he has done personally to confirm those figures, so that he ensures he gives only accurate information to the House?
Several hon. Members rose—
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Another point we need to consider is the impact on food security if farmers decide to hand back their farms or have their farms broken up, as my right hon. Friend suggests. Does she have any thoughts or has she seen any evidence about the possible impact on food security? I have not seen any such evidence, which is a concern in itself.
Victoria Atkins
It most certainly is a concern, and I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. He represents a very rural constituency and knows only too well the concerns his constituents are facing. It is a good point, which I will develop later in my speech.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
On that point, will my right hon. Friend give way?
Victoria Atkins
I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), and then I will make some progress.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is very kind, and she is making a masterly exposition of how to deconstruct this case. Did she notice, exactly a week ago, when we had an urgent question on the subject, the Minister for Food Security and Rural Affairs was asked how food security could be valued if the result of the Budget measures would be that farmland would be split up and sold off, probably for development. His answer said, in part:
“Of course there are trade-offs. There are a range of pressures on our land, in respect of housing, food, energy and so many other things.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 37.]
So he seemed to be accepting that land will be sold off and it will be built upon.
Victoria Atkins
Of course, the Government’s permissions for solar and wind industrial units on prime agricultural land will only add to those pressures as well.
Several hon. Members rose—
Victoria Atkins
I will make some progress. The immediate impact of the changes, as my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) said in his intervention on the Secretary of State, is that farmers are already stopping capital investments in machinery, systems and buildings for fear that any improvements to their farms will send them over the cliff edge into this tax trap. So for a Government that claim to want to grow the economy, their choices are achieving the exact opposite. This family farm tax is a broken promise that will break family farms.
I move now to the second broken promise: the accelerated reduction in delinked payments. From next year, those vital payments will be substantially less than farms were promised. They cannot have foreseen that when they made their business plans. A tenant farmer has told me that he does not know how he is going to pay his rent next year, because the drop is worth more than £20,000. Can the Minister explain how this farmer should do more with less?
The third broken promise is the hike in national insurance for employers, of course. As the OBR has said, an increase in employer NICS will be passed “entirely” on to working people. I know that Labour does not actually know who it means by “working people” but the Conservatives are clear that it definitely includes farmers, their staff and the small businesses that support them, day in, day out.
Louise Jones (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)
The shadow Secretary of State says that she opposes the changes. Will she commit to reversing them, and which public services would she cut—for example, which NHS services?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Lady is new to her place. As Financial Secretary to the Treasury I used to collect taxes for the United Kingdom and as the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care I used to spend pretty much all of them, so I know that the £500 million that the Government have score-carded this increase as achieving by the end of the score-card period will buy a fraction of what the NHS needs on a daily basis, let alone annually. If you believe the Whips’ handouts, the difficulty is that they sometimes get you into trouble.
For that matter, the phrase “working people” also includes our rural publicans. Labour Members are very proud of their Chancellor taking a penny off a pint. Yet any rural publican will tell you that will not even touch the sides alongside the NICs tax hike. Sadly, Labour’s jobs tax will see higher prices, fewer staff and more pub closures.
The jobs tax is also hurting our frontline services. GP surgeries, care homes, hospices, pharmacies and dental practices will all see their costs rise, and some will close. That hurts in a city centre, but it is devastating in communities who live with the impacts of rural sparsity, where it is more expensive to deliver services.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
I appreciate that the right hon. Lady has referenced the NHS. I get lots of letters, emails and messages from farmers who have been completely let down by the state of the NHS as it was left by her as Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. Given that she has a new role, has she had any time to reflect on where she went wrong?
Victoria Atkins
I know the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world very well and I am sure—I can sense that he will be a conscientious local MP, mindful of his small majority—that he will badger the Health Secretary and ask him why he has not delivered the Conservatives’ dental recovery plan, which this autumn would have seen dental vans in rural and coastal areas, because as the Secretary of State I wanted to ensure that those areas had dentistry services, and golden hellos for new dentists setting up in rural and coastal areas. We were also introducing additional dental training places. We can all see the need in our rural areas, but the jobs tax and the family farm tax are not the answer.
This Government love raising taxes, so they are also raising taxes on fertiliser, on double-cab pickups and on business asset disposal relief, while risking food security by permitting solar and wind industrial plants to be built on prime agricultural land. The great shame is that none of this is necessary. This Chancellor’s cockeyed accounting is not believed by farmers, the public or even the OBR.
In government, we provided the largest ever programme of grants to farmers and brought the farming budget to its highest ever level. We provided more than £5 billion for flood protection, and established a new national rural crime unit. But we also understood that farmers and rural communities need dynamic support, and that is why we committed to raising the farming budget by £1 billion over this Parliament—a move this Labour Government have failed to replicate. Their freeze in the farming budget with no guarantee of a forthcoming increase means they have chosen to offer farmers and rural communities a real-terms cut. That all adds up to a direct risk to food security, because if our farmers do not thrive, domestic food production suffers, and that means more imports and higher prices. This is the “don’t bother” Budget from the “don’t care” Government.
This is the Labour Government’s choice and they should own it. They have turned their backs on rural communities and we will not forget. We will not forget that this Government are happy to plough straight over anyone who is not a trade unionist. We will not forget the huge bills put by this Chancellor on to working people, pensioners, farmers, pub landlords, business owners, and students.
I repeat the pledge by the Leader of the Opposition—the Conservatives will reverse the cruel family farm tax. To all farmers, farming families and rural communities out there, I say that we Conservatives stand with you, we have your back and we will work night and day to hold this useless Labour Government to account.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Josh Newbury to make his maiden speech.