Oral Answers to Questions

Victoria Atkins Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I wish a merry Christmas to everyone in the House, and also to everyone in our farming, food, hospitality and water sectors. But not everyone will be able to celebrate Christmas. In recent weeks, a farmer took himself off to a remote part of his farm and killed himself. The message he left his family, who wish to remain anonymous, is that he did this because he feared becoming a financial burden to his family because of changes to inheritance tax. This is the human cost of the figures that the Secretary of State provides so casually. What does the Secretary of State say to that grieving family?

[Steve Reed]

I extend my heartfelt sympathies to that family, but I think it is irresponsible in the extreme to seek to weaponise a personal tragedy of that kind in this way. Where there is mental ill health, there needs to be support for that, and this Government are investing in it. The right hon. Lady knows from the last year for which data is available that the vast majority of claimants will pay absolutely nothing following the changes to agricultural property relief.

[Victoria Atkins]

How heartless and how extraordinary that the Secretary of State is more discomfited by being presented with the facts of the consequences of his policy than the reality of what this policy ensures. I was a Minister for seven and a half years, and I have never seen a policy have the consequences that this one has. [Interruption.] Members of the public will see Labour Members reacting in that way because I have dared to present them with the facts. We know that there is a tragically high suicide rate among the farming community. The National Farmers Union gave evidence about this, and the Secretary of State has been told repeatedly. Will he collect data on a monthly basis of suicides from farmers, farming families, landowners and family businesses, so that we, the House and the outside community can understand the human costs of this tax policy before it comes into force?

[Steve Reed]

Mental health services are the responsibility of the national health service, and the former Health Secretary, who broke the NHS, is in no position to lecture anybody about public services. She was no friend of the health service and mental health services, and she is no friend of farming. Some 12,000 farms went bust on the Conservatives’ watch. They failed to get £300 million out the door and into the pockets and bank accounts of farmers, and they signed a trade deal with Australia that undercut British farmers on environmental and welfare standards. I hear the posturing, but it is this Government who are standing up for farming.

Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords]

Victoria Atkins Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I welcome the opportunity to debate the vital issue of water and how this Bill may be improved. The Secretary of State will be relieved to hear that I intend to focus on water quality tonight, rather than his selling of farmers, fishermen and family businesses down the river—we dealt with that this afternoon at the London Palladium summit.

Across the House, we agree that there are fundamental problems facing the water and sewerage industry that span decades. While we enjoy high-quality drinking water across the UK, there are, sadly, some streams, rivers and beaches where sewage is discharged with disgusting results, chiefly because our Victorian-era sewerage system cannot cope with a larger population and increasingly volatile weather. We Conservatives recognised that when we entered government in 2010 and started the enormous and decades-long task of turning things around.

[Gareth Snell]

And how is that going?

[Victoria Atkins]

I will come on that, and the hon. Gentleman will regret asking that question.

I am going to set out our record on water, because it is important that this Government act on the facts rather than believing their own rhetoric—as was demonstrated, sadly, by the shameful betrayal of farming and family businesses in Labour’s Budget of broken promises.

Since 2010, the number of designated bathing waters has increased. We have seen a significant improvement in water quality ratings, with more waters rated as “excellent” or “good”, and an increase in blue flag beaches. I gently point out that England performs better than other parts of the UK when it comes to leaks, drinking water quality and bathing water quality. I understand why Labour Members—including the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West (Chi Onwurah), who is no longer in her place—have raised the issue of dividends, but it is an inconvenient fact that over 65% of dividends were paid out during the New Labour Government era, with a decline over the 14 years that we were in government.

There is more to be done, which is precisely why we want to help the Government to improve their piece of legislation. It is also why the work of the last decade must be seen as part of this giant infrastructure project. We were the first Government in history to set out that storm overflows must be reduced. To do that, storm overflows had to be monitored and measured. I have to say that I was surprised that the Secretary of State was so dismissive of the need to monitor. As a Home Office Minister, I was painfully aware that we needed to monitor, for example, reports of sexual violence against women, because once it is measured, we can manage it.

It is surprising that the Secretary of State does not appear to think that monitoring storm overflows matters. The reason why is that the previous Labour Government monitored just 7% of storm overflows in 2010. He cannot say that there are more overflows than ever before, because the previous Labour Government did not measure them. The fact that we increased monitoring to 100% of storm overflows means that we know the frequency and have been able to build a body of work on top of that. [Interruption.] He asks what we have done as a result, and I am very happy to help him with that. The data has empowered enraged residents to demand that their local streams, rivers and beaches be cleaned up. It is a critical part of the decades-long work on our water systems that is required, but we were not content with maximising monitoring. The data must be used—

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Victoria Atkins]

I will give way in a moment.

The data must be used to improve water quality, which is why our landmark Environment Act 2021 gave stronger powers to regulators and imposed stricter demands for tackling pollution. We set legally binding targets to improve water quality and availability, and to reduce nutrient pollution. We rolled out catchment-sensitive farming to 100% of farms in England. Presumably, the Labour Government support the Environment Act 2021, because they seem to be replicating some of it in this Bill.

We recognised that the ageing water infrastructure needs rebuilding. The Conservative Government stepped up the requirements for investment, including investment from water companies in storm overflow improvements and nationally significant infrastructure projects, such as the Thames tideway tunnel super-sewer—the Secretary of State need only walk out the back of this House to see that sewer. He is now taking credit for the last Government’s work and is not happy to accept that.

[Ben Coleman]

May I suggest that if the right hon. Lady wishes to see the situation in the Thames, she need only go three bridges downstream to my constituency of Chelsea and Fulham, where the people who live in the Chelsea Reach houseboats regularly send me photos of the dirt and sewage coming down the river after 14 years of absolute failure to regulate the industry?

[Victoria Atkins]

I imagine the hon. Gentleman presents himself as a fair-minded individual to his constituents. When the Thames tideway super-sewer is open and functioning, presumably he will say to his constituents that they will see a vast improvement in the terrible situation that he has just described, thanks to the previous Government securing investment in order to make it possible.

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

Listening to the right hon. Lady and the excuses that the previous Government have made for what they did, it seems that what you were doing was equivalent to polishing one of the many turds that you will find in the Thames. Perhaps you would like to listen to your main electoral competitor, Reform UK, which actually has a policy for public ownership—I was quite surprised to find that out myself. Perhaps you think that that could solve many of the problems in UK waters.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. One solution would be not using the word “you”. As an experienced Member, he should know much better than that.

[Victoria Atkins]

Particularly as the hon. Gentleman was talking about effluent, which is not respectful. I know that he is capable of much greater advocacy than that. I am afraid that I will take no lessons from the Reform party, as he encourages, although I understand that Labour may face some threats from that party in the Welsh Senedd elections—but I digress.

We made it clear that the water industry must prioritise action to improve the environment, including protecting priority habitats such as chalk streams. I have the good fortune to have chalk streams in my constituency; they have carved their way through Lincolnshire’s wolds for the last 10,000 years. The dedicated chalk streams fund, announced by the Conservatives in 2022, has been put to good use in Lincolnshire. Will the Minister for Water and Flooding, whom I welcome to her place, confirm in her wind-up that the protection schemes for chalk streams will continue?

Following the pandemic, we launched our plan for water, which integrates water and food planning, tackles all sources of pollution and gives the Environment Agency the power to issue bigger penalties to water companies. We banned microbeads in rinse-off personal care products, reduced plastic bag usage by 95% and banned wet wipes containing plastic, which is a huge source of water pollution.

I understand why the Labour Government highlight the bonuses that water company bosses have received. Again, I gently point out to the Secretary of State—perhaps he has not done his homework—that the Environment Act 2021, which his Back Benchers do not seem to have read, gave regulators the power to ban water bosses from receiving bonuses if companies have committed serious criminal breaches. [Interruption.] Labour Members ask whether the regulators used it. They are independent, and it is for the regulators to justify why they have not used that power under the legislation that is available.

[Helena Dollimore]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

I will do in a moment—I am not like the Secretary of State.

The truth is that Labour Members do not like hearing the facts. We brought forward measures to ensure that companies that pollute the environment can be hit with unlimited financial penalties. We also set up the water restoration fund, meaning that any fines or penalties levelled at water companies were ringfenced to support projects that improve the environment and keep pressure off bills, rather than being returned to the Treasury. The fact that Ministers appear to have stalled the fund reveals how little this Government understand the countryside or care about it. Indeed, it looks like they have held back £168 million in fines that were due to be paid into the fund.

Why on earth would this Labour Government not want polluters to pay? Why are they content for fines of many millions of pounds to be paid into the Treasury slush fund, rather than local environmental projects that have been damaged by storm overflows? Does the Treasury really need that money, or is it perhaps paying for the Deputy Prime Minister’s new, flash apartment? My colleagues and I will work to ensure that the water restoration fund is reinstated and that money goes to local environment projects to protect local environments, as was intended.

Most of the measures in this Bill, including monitoring, blocking bonuses and significant fines, were in fact brought it by the Conservative Government. Indeed, primary legislation is not necessary to put most of these measures into practice.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

I am pleased to hear the right hon. Lady championing her party’s record on the environment. Her colleagues are somewhat less confident, given that only 12.5% of the parliamentary Conservative party have bothered to show up to the debate. Is that because they are ashamed or because they do not have the same confidence as she does in their record on the environment and pollution?

[Victoria Atkins]

No, it is because they know that we have already put most of these powers into place and that this is a PR exercise. None the less, it is an important topic, which is why we will ensure that the Government improve the Bill—there is much improvement to be done—and work constructively across the House to ensure that that happens. We understand that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Calder Valley want clean water as much as my residents in Lincolnshire do.

In Committee and beyond, we will be working to improve this Bill, and I want to join the Secretary of State in thanking the noble Lords in the other place for already starting this task of improvement. In particular, I congratulate Lord Cromwell, who amended the Bill to improve accountability on debt levels and the financial structuring of water companies. Will the Minister please confirm that the Government will keep those amendments in the Bill?

[Mr Holden]

On a fairly small technical point, the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Josh Fenton-Glynn) made the point that 12.5% of Conservative Members are here. Perhaps he should look at the statistics, because only 11% of Labour Members are here. I know that the last Labour Government were not interested in monitoring the outflows, but they could at least monitor their own Members.

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank my right hon. Friend. That shows that we on this side can count, unlike the cockeyed accounting of the Chancellor and her Ministers.

In Committee and beyond, the Conservatives will look to deliver an effective limit on water company borrowing. We will boost the way that nature-based solutions can be used in drainage and sewerage management plans, as well as in water storage and tackling pollution. We will also seek to bring back the water restoration fund as an absolute priority.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Member think it is acceptable that 90-year-old residents in Fillongley in my constituency go out in their wellington boots at night to deal with flooding in their village because her Government did not invest in local solutions for the last 14 years?

[Victoria Atkins]

Of course the constituents’ experience that the hon. Lady has described is not acceptable. I do not think anyone would say that it was. Sometimes the public are switched off by this back and forth, because the idea that anyone would be content with the experience that she has described is for the birds. The difference that we draw on—I hope we will have a much more constructive conversation about water than this—is that the investment that was made by the last Government in flooding has had many benefits across the country but, as I acknowledged at the beginning of my speech, there is more to be done. That is why we will support the Bill, but we will be looking to improve it.

I just want to make sure that the Minister got the point that I was making. The amendment that came from the Lords to improve accountability on debt levels and on the financial structuring of water companies is a critical one, and I very much hope that the Government will address this and set out their commitment to keep that amendment that the noble Lords saw fit to put in the Bill.

As I say, in Committee and beyond, the Conservatives will look to deliver effective and constructive amendments to this Bill, but I put down this marker. It is surprising—and, I have to say, disappointing—that the Government have failed to grasp that water companies and sewage are just two elements in managing, maintaining and improving our waterways and water quality. Where are the plans for investment in infrastructure? Where are the plans for nature-based solutions? Where are the plans for the roles of other businesses? As we face the likelihood of increased bills being announced this week, what guarantees and reassurances can the Government give to bill payers? And what plans do the Government have to separate foul water and surface water systems? That is a critical infrastructure question that I hope we will get some answers to in the coming weeks. How will the Government encourage investment, particularly given the depressive effects on growth that this Chancellor and her Budget are having on the economy?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the shadow Minister for her words of wisdom in the Chamber tonight. Does she share my concern over the excessive bonuses that the chief executives of these businesses get? Does she know how much that angers and annoys the ordinary person in the street, who wants to know why somebody is getting a six-figure sum for not doing their job right while they are just trying to make ends meet?

[Victoria Atkins]

Of course we understand that, and it is why we put the powers into the Environment Act 2021 that I am sure the hon. Gentleman and many others voted to support. I hope we can move away from this back and forth and understand the facts as they are and how we can improve on them, because that is what we all want.

We all care about the quality of our water. Let us not pretend or suggest otherwise. I would not suggest that Labour Members do not care about the quality of water, and I do not understand why they think we do not care about the quality of the water that we and our constituents use, drink and swim in—[Interruption.] It is interesting—the left do not like it when we point out that they use motivations rather than the facts. This is why the Conservatives set in train the measures needed to make a meaningful and long-term difference to water quality in this country. That task is not yet finished, and we will support thoughtful, sensible and cost-effective measures to further improve water quality.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

Storm Bert

Victoria Atkins Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Storm Bert has had, and continues to have, terrible impacts across the United Kingdom. Our thoughts are with the loved ones of those who have lost their lives in recent days as well as the people whose homes and businesses have been devastated and all the communities affected by flooding and this weather. I understand the distress, the anger and, frankly, the exhaustion many will be feeling today as they contemplate the process of rebuilding their homes, businesses and communities because my own constituency suffered terrible damage from Storm Babet a year ago. Residents need practical support quickly, and they also need some reassurance for the future.

I thank the emergency services, the local authorities and the Environment Agency for their efforts to help people quickly and often in dangerous circumstances, but I also thank the members of the public who have stepped in to help their neighbours and local communities in countless ways. They are the rays of kindness in what has been a dark weekend for many communities.

The Government need to focus on how help will be given to those who have been driven out of their homes, including the provision of decent temporary accommodation and the repair and reopening of schools, as well as the process for speeding up insurance claims so that residents can return home as quickly as possible. Knowing, as we do, sadly, from previous storms, how important Members across this House will be in helping their constituents, will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that his Department sends a daily operational update to Members across the House so that Members may help their constituents assiduously?

Last week the Secretary of State’s Department will have received data from the Met Office about the severity of this storm and its likely impacts. So that we can understand the urgency that the Secretary of State gave to these warnings, will he please tell us about the discussions he had with the Environment Agency and the Met Office before the storm hit and when they were held, and what actions were implemented as a result of any such meetings?

The Secretary of State mentioned his Government’s floods resilience taskforce, which was set up to improve flood preparedness. It has met once since July, and its next meeting is next year. He has just said that its duty is to prepare for the autumn and winter. Can he list precisely the preparations arising out of that meeting and the practical impacts on communities up and down the country?

Regrettably, with the threat of flooding still present —indeed, as I rose to my feet, one severe flood warning and 120 flood warnings were still in place—the Secretary of State descended into playing politics. To correct him, I will just set out these facts, and there is a question for him to answer at the end. The last Conservative Government committed a record £5.2 billion from 2021 until 2027 to provide significantly improved flooding defences across the country. That is critical and long-standing infrastructure work. Will he confirm whether the £2.4 billion he has referenced is part of that £5.2 billion or in addition to it?

The Conservatives ringfenced £100 million to help those communities threatened repeatedly by flooding. It was called the frequently flooded allowance. Will the Government confirm the continuance of this fund and its ringfencing? When is the next assessment for that scheme? Can communities flooded through Storm Bert be included? We also set up the natural flood management fund to complement traditional bricks and mortar defences. Can the Secretary of State confirm that that will be continued? I note that the Secretary of State has mentioned funding independent drainage boards to the tune of £50 million. Can he confirm that the funding has been cut from the £75 million promised by the Conservatives, and why?

While I welcome the increase of £10 million in the Budget for the farming recovery fund, which was announced by the Conservative Government to support farmers for last year’s wet weather, can the Secretary of State confirm that he will announce new money to support farmers for this winter’s bad weather? Can he give comfort to the farmers watching that the Treasury will include adverse weather conditions and flooding as mitigations for its much criticised family farm tax?

I end by wishing every community, whether they are the subject of those flood warnings or watching their weather updates with great concern, a safe and comfortable few days ahead.

[Steve Reed]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her comments, and I echo her good wishes to people who have been affected by the situation. She refers to funding. I politely remind her that she was a Treasury Minister in the previous Government, who underfunded our flood defences and left more than 3,000 of them—the highest level on record—in an inadequate state. She asks about appropriate support on the frontline. The floods resilience taskforce exists to ensure that those on the frontline across the country—local authorities and the agencies responsible—were ready for this and other storms when they happen, and that appropriate support was in place for individuals, families and communities that may be affected. That of course includes those who are most vulnerable.

The Minister for Water and Flooding, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy) has already held a roundtable with insurance providers to ensure that we are speeding up support for those who are affected by flooding. The Environment Agency will keep Members regularly updated on the circumstances in their own constituencies. Turning back to funding, we have allocated £2.4 billion over the next two years, which is more per annum in each of those two years than the previous Government allocated for the current year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Victoria Atkins Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[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

Monday 11th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[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 (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

I will give way once more, and then I must make some progress.

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.