Skip to main content

Commons Chamber

Volume 758: debated on Wednesday 4 December 2024

House of Commons

Wednesday 4 December 2024

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Scotland

The Secretary of State was asked—

Economic Growth

The Scotland Office is supporting the White Ribbon Scotland campaign, which asks people to sign a pledge never to commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women. I have signed it, as has the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill), and I encourage Scottish Members from across the House to come to Dover House foyer and sign the pledge themselves. This Government have a mission to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade. I am sure that the whole House supports that.

Economic growth is our No. 1 mission in this Government. We announced a historic Budget for Scotland that chose investment over decline and an end to austerity. On top of a record settlement, the UK Government are investing nearly £1.4 billion into local growth projects in Scotland, creating the national wealth fund to support our new industrial strategy and driving the transition to clean energy via Great British Energy, which is headquartered in Aberdeen.

The first Labour Budget in 14 years delivered £4.9 billion for Scotland in Barnett consequentials—the biggest settlement since devolution, putting an end to austerity. On top of that, it confirmed £20 million for Kilmarnock in my constituency—I thank the Secretary of State for ensuring that that funding was delivered, despite the £22 billion black hole in the public finances left by the Tories. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the last Tory Government made promises to Scotland that they had no intention of keeping?

I thank my hon. Friend not only for that question but for the tenacity with which she has backed Kilmarnock to get more funding for her local area in the Budget. It is an absolute disgrace that the previous Government made promises to communities such as Kilmarnock about funding that they never had an intention of keeping. This Government stepped in and funded those projects, chose investment over decline and will deliver growth and higher living standards. The irony is that the Scottish National party voted against the largest funding settlement in the history of devolution yesterday, but will spend it today.

I recently visited Vector Photonics in my constituency, an optical and photonic centre of excellence and a successful spin-out from Glasgow University. What role does the Secretary of State believe there is for start-up and spin-out tech companies in Scotland’s economic growth?

I wish Vector Photonics well. Supporting start-ups and spin-out tech companies and the world-leading Scottish universities that often incubate them is an important part of this Government’s steadfast commitment to economic growth. It was privilege to see at first hand the importance of these spin-outs during my recent visit to Malaysia and Singapore, when I discussed this with the Scottish universities present in those countries and representatives from the Government and business. Scottish universities punch well above their weight internationally—something we should nurture and be very proud of.

With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I wish Peter MacMahon well as he steps down as Scottish political editor of ITV Border. Peter has provided outstanding coverage of not just Scottish questions in this Parliament but Scottish politics more generally to my constituents and those across the south of Scotland.

I am sure the Secretary of State will welcome, as I do, the fact that the life of Torness nuclear power station has been extended. That is good for energy security and for the Scottish economy. But given that energy is a reserved matter, what more can he do to bring new nuclear development to Scotland?

I join the right hon. Gentleman in his tribute to Peter MacMahon as he steps down as the political editor of ITV in the Borders region. He and I share something closely: we both have good faces for radio, but it is always nice to appear with Peter MacMahon on television. This Government are committed to clean power by 2030, and of course, nuclear is part of that mix.

The Secretary of State will recognise that the rise in national insurance contributions will have a clear impact on economic growth, whether in Scotland or anywhere else in this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Representatives from the food sector tell me that food prices will increase by between 15% and 20%. That will impact the ordinary man and woman in the street. What impact does the Minister think the rise in national insurance contributions will have on economic growth?

Economic growth is the No. 1 mission of this Government, as the hon. Gentleman knows. When the Chancellor came to the Dispatch Box to deliver her Budget, she started on minus £22 billion—that black hole left for us by the previous Government. We chose investment over decline and we chose to end austerity, so tough decisions had to be made.

The Secretary of State has said before and he has said again today that one of his top priorities for the Scotland Office is growth. To grow, the Government need confidence from business. Let us see how that is going: the verdict from Scottish business to his Government’s Budget is in. Offshore Energies UK said that

“this is a difficult day for the sector.”

The Scottish Hospitality Group has said:

“Today’s announcements are a blow to businesses across the country”.

The Scotch Whisky Association said that the increase in spirits duty is a “hammer blow”. The National Farmers Union Scotland has said that the decisions will cause “huge difficulties” and act as a barrier to those wanting to get into farming.

Given those responses, if not from retail, oil and gas, hospitality, food and drink or financial services, from which sector does he think this mythical growth will come?

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place as the new shadow Secretary of State for Scotland and as a shadow Energy Minister—he has something in common with the right hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), the leader of the SNP in this House, who also aspires to have two jobs. Unlike the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), I have actually run my own business, so I know that running a business needs stability, credibility and confidence. The previous Government crashed the economy, leaving it in tatters, and left business confidence at a record low. We are investing for the future, and businesses back that.

I would take the right hon. Gentleman’s responses more seriously if we did not all see, and indeed have just heard, how damaging his Government’s actions are for the Scottish economy—national insurance increases and punitive tax rises on our most successful industries, putting at risk the future of family farms and the rural economy. As Secretary of State, he would rather make performative gestures such as refusing to cross a picket line outside his Department than meet Scotland’s business leaders. As people, local authorities and businesses await the Scottish Government’s budget later today, does he agree that when it comes to economic incompetence, Scotland really does have, in his Government and in the proven ineptitude of the SNP, the very worst of all worlds?

I will be corrected if I am wrong, but I think the hon. Gentleman backed former Prime Minister Liz Truss, who, when she was Prime Minister, crashed the economy and left a £22 billion black hole—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman shakes his head and says that he did not, but he walked through the Lobby with her when she did those things in her Budget. He did back former Prime Minister Liz Truss. We will take no lectures from the Opposition on how to run the economy or back business. Of course, his party left the highest tax burden on working people in 70 years—another inheritance that this Government will have to try to resolve.

I am sure that, like the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie) and myself, the Secretary of State for Scotland is watching with bated breath for the latest Scottish Budget. After 17 years of incompetence, people are looking for change in Scotland, and the Labour party is promising it. Will the Secretary of State follow the initiative of his Scottish leader, Anas Sarwar, in saying he will reinstate the winter fuel allowance and make representations to the Prime Minister to reconsider other policies, such as the national insurance changes, which are creating instability and uncertainty for the Scottish economy?

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady, but this is another instance where the Opposition parties in this Chamber want all the benefits of the Budget, but they do not want to be able to pay for it. We have announced the largest settlement for Scotland in devolution’s history: £47.7 billion, which is £4.9 billion extra. The Chancellor delivered £4.9 billion extra in Barnett consequentials alone from this Dispatch Box during the Budget—the SNP voted against it, but will spend it today.

Support for Veterans

This Government are fully committed to delivering for veterans, and I pay tribute to them and their families for the sacrifices they make during their service, as well as their valued contribution to our society after they leave. The Minister for Veterans and People, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), is leading work across Government, and with the Scottish Government, to ensure veterans and their families can access all the support they need.

There is significant variability in the provision of veteran services across the nations. What steps is the Secretary of State taking, alongside his Cabinet colleagues, to ensure parity of services across the nations, and in particular in Scotland?

The Minister for Veterans and People is leading this work. The Prime Minister recently made an announcement on giving veterans a social housing exemption, which, I can confirm, will bring England in line with Scotland, where veterans are already exempt from the local connection requirement to access social housing. We are creating a level playing field across the nations to support veterans, as I mentioned in my first answer.

Since 1921, the Royal British Legion Scotland has supported veterans and their families through education, remembrance and direct support. This weekend, in my constituency in Keighley, the town council and community groups are unveiling a memorial to the fallen of the first world war, with a time capsule placed under the cenotaph to be opened in 100 years. Does the Minister agree that events such as these, which bring together the whole community, are of vital importance for our veterans—not only in Keighley, but in Scotland and across the wider United Kingdom?

I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the volunteers who often run these events. I also draw the House’s attention to the work of the War Memorials Trust, which is one of the many unsung organisations that do incredible work across this country to maintain war memorials so that we all may remember. Across this House, we have many veterans and those who have served; I pay tribute to them all, and in particular to the 13 Members on the Government Benches who are veterans or reservists.

Last week, I had the honour of attending the steel-cutting ceremony of HMS Sheffield at BAE Govan in my constituency, adding to a long list in the tradition of building high-quality defence industry vessels on the Clyde. What assurances can the Minister give me that defence procurement and skills will continue to be developed on the Clyde?

I can give my hon. Friend the firmest of assurances that we will continue to prioritise shipbuilding on the Clyde, and indeed defence jobs across Scotland.

Living Standards

Our economic growth mission will raise living standards in Scotland. Our new deal for working people will disproportionately benefit Scots. New protections such as guaranteed hours will help shift workers with up to £600 a year. We are also delivering an annual pay rise of £1,400 for hundreds of thousands of full-time workers in Scotland, and we have committed to the triple lock, which means an extra £470 for pensioners next year. Last week, we paid the first instalment to 7,000 former Scottish miners with their full pension. We will improve living standards through better public services and pay driven by economic growth.

Does the Secretary of State agree that community benefit funds from wind farms contribute to improving living standards for communities? Will he join me in praising the work of the nine community council groups in Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock as a model of the fair distribution of funds to support local apprenticeships and improve living standards across the Cumnock and Doon Valley areas?

I congratulate not only the nine community councils in my hon. Friend’s area on their initiative, but community councils up and down the country that do so much work on our behalf to ensure that the community benefit fund, derived from local wind farms, makes a tangible difference to local people. I congratulate her on standing up consistently for her community. Our mission is to become a clean energy superpower by 2030, and our communities will be at the heart of that. Communities must benefit from hosting national infrastructure for clean power. That is why right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero is developing guidance on community benefits, which will be published in due course.

Some 100,000 Scots are on zero-hours contracts, with no guarantee of secure hours. Labour’s Employment Rights Bill will address that. Does the Secretary of State agree that 100,000 Scots being in insecure work is a damning indictment of the state the Tories left our economy in and shows that we need a new direction in Holyrood?

Mr Speaker, you will not be surprised to hear that I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] Absolutely shocked! The Government inherited not just a fiscal crisis from the previous Government, but an industrial one too. We need more high-quality jobs in Scotland. Between our industrial strategy, our plan to get Scotland working and the employment rights legislation, we will help to deliver that. Do not forget that the SNP Government said that zero-hours contracts were a “positive destination” for work. Our plans to make work pay will have a bigger positive benefit in Scotland than in the rest of the UK. That is the difference in having Scottish Labour MPs on the Government Benches.

I join the Secretary of State for Scotland in welcoming the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland to his place. I congratulate him on his appointment. It does make it difficult sometimes to tell the two of them apart, that being said, especially on days like today. Today, the Scottish Government will continue to protect the most vulnerable in society from the excesses of Westminster cuts. Instead of Tory cuts, it will be Labour cuts to winter fuel payments. Does the Secretary of State agree with the cut to the winter fuel allowance?

Mr Speaker, I am sorry for such a short response to the hon. Gentleman, but there are 4.9 billion reasons why that question is rubbish.

I have to say I am not surprised. There is huge confusion in the Labour party about the winter fuel allowance. The Scottish Government are doing something about it; the UK Government are not. The Secretary of State did not even know the number of pensioners who would be affected by the winter fuel cut. Labour is now distancing itself from Labour. Vote Labour to stop Labour—is that the message his party is sending out, or should voters just vote for the party that is actually doing something about it?

I think what the hon. Gentleman is tending to forget is that the winter fuel payment in Scotland is devolved. It was the SNP Scottish Government who decided to means-test it as well. If it was not for the £4.9 billion extra delivered by our Labour Chancellor at this Dispatch Box to end austerity, which the Scottish Government will spend today, they would not be able to make any decisions whatsoever.

Town Centre Regeneration

I commend the hon. Lady for her work with the Chancellor to help to deliver a record Budget settlement for Scotland, the largest Scottish Government Budget settlement in the history of devolution. It is now up to the Scottish Government to ensure that our towns feel the benefit of it: there can be no more excuses from the Scottish National party. The Budget also confirmed nearly £1.4 billion of funding for local growth projects, and we are delivering growth deals in all parts of Scotland, many of which are improving town centres and other community assets.

Hamilton is a brilliant place in which to live and work, but the boarded-up shops in Quarry Street tell a story of their own. What can this Government do to support businesses across Hamilton and Clyde Valley, and across Scotland, which have suffered so badly under the chaos and neglect of two Governments, Conservative and SNP?

My hon. Friend is entirely correct, and I commend her for standing up for her town. In England this Labour Government have already delivered lower business rates for leisure, hospitality and retail businesses, which can help high streets, and I am sure that every Scottish MP wants to see that policy replicated in Scotland.

As we are discussing brilliant towns, it is timely to mention brilliant retail workers too, especially at this time of year. I am supporting the Christmas campaign organised by the Scottish Retail Consortium and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers to encourage everyone to respect our shop workers at this particularly busy time of year.

For far too long Ullapool, in my constituency, did not have a post office, which caused great inconvenience to local people. Recently, however, Tesco stepped into the breach, and we now have a highly successful post office in a branch in the middle of Ullapool. May I recommend this approach to regenerating town centres to the Ministers?

We are delighted to receive representations of all kinds on how to improve our town centres. We know that they have suffered neglect for far too long. I hope that all Scottish MPs will have been lobbying for the kind of support for our leisure, hospitality and retail sector that this Government have already given south of the border.

Transport Connectivity

May I first pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, my predecessor? I know that he will continue to represent his constituents assiduously from the Back Benches. Both the Secretary of State and I will be working closely with the Department for Transport and the Scottish Government to ensure that cross-border connectivity remains a top priority for this Government.

Extending the Borders railway line to Hawick and Newcastleton and then on to Carlisle will boost jobs, help the local economy and improve social mobility. The funding for the feasibility study was agreed by the last Conservative Government with the SNP Administration in Edinburgh, but the new Labour Government seem to have pushed this into the railway sidings. Will the Minister ensure that the funding for the feasibility study is released as soon as possible?

The UK Government are fully committed to the Borderlands growth deal. It will deliver economic growth for the south of Scotland and beyond, which is one of our key missions. The Scotland Office continues to work with the Department for Transport, the Scottish Government and Borderlands partners on the next stage of business case development for the Tweedbank-Carlisle corridor, and on feasibility options for the extension of the Borders railway line. Unfortunately, it is ultimately up to Transport Scotland and the Scottish Government to follow through on the delivery of this important project.

May I echo the Minister’s words about her predecessor—and indeed my own predecessor as shadow Secretary of State—and the work that he has done?

One of the last Government’s decisions of which I am most proud was the halving of air passenger duty, which led to cheaper flights and increased routes across the UK. However, with airlines already cutting back on routes as a result of this Government’s decision to hike APD, people who do not live within a few hours of London on the train, such as those in Aberdeen, face higher fares and fewer options for travel. How can the Government credibly claim to support better transport connectivity across the United Kingdom when those living outside the central belt—I know that Labour Members need to be reminded that it exists—are being punished?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, we face a climate emergency and, indeed, an economic emergency of his Government’s own making. We were faced in our first few months in government with a £22 billion black hole, with Treasury reserves spent three times over. We have taken tough choices to try to deal with the economic inheritance that we received.

Autumn Budget: Discussions with Scottish Government

We have reset the relationship with the Scottish Government, and I have met the Deputy First Minister numerous times to discuss the autumn Budget and other issues. Between the moment when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor stood up and the moment when she sat down, Scotland was better off to the tune of £4.9 billion in Barnett consequentials alone—again, money that the SNP voted against, but will spend today. I encourage the Scottish Government to use that money to strengthen frontline services, bring down NHS waiting times and lift attainment in our schools. There can be no more excuses. We ended austerity, and it is time that they followed.

I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. A thriving retail, hospitality and leisure sector is critical to brand Scotland. Following the welcome decision in the Budget to ensure a 40% rates relief for RHL businesses in England, what guarantees, if any, has my right hon. Friend had from the Scottish Government that the extra Barnett consequentials linked to non-domestic rates will be passed on in today’s Scottish Budget? Does he agree that any failure to do so would be deeply damaging to the sector?

I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he is absolutely correct. The UK Budget chose investment over decline, including investment directly in my hon. Friend’s constituency as part of the £200 million towns fund, as well as the biggest Budget settlement in the history of devolution. He is also right to say that our hospitality businesses need the rates relief more than ever. The Scottish Government should use their Budget to deliver growth and investment to help our high streets, and passing on the relief should be the bare minimum.

We have delivered the biggest Budget settlement for the Scottish Government in the history of devolution, with, as the House has heard today, more than £4.9 billion of extra funding that can go towards public services. Does the Secretary of State agree that there are no more excuses for the SNP, and that Scots expect and deserve delivery and improvement of our public services?

Of course, I could not agree more. It is not just the £4.9 billion, but all the other investment that the UK Government made outside the Barnett consequentials. The Labour Government have delivered billions of pounds more for schools and hospitals in Scotland. It is more money than ever before, but the SNP MPs voted against it. They voted to deny Holyrood its biggest ever Budget settlement by voting against the Finance Bill last week, but of course they will happily spend it in their Budget today. They also voted against Great British Energy, which will be based in the SNP leader’s own constituency. Given what we have read about the SNP’s selection processes, I guess the SNP MPs are keener to send themselves to Holyrood than billions of pounds of extra funding.

I am sure that pensioners in the Secretary of State’s constituency are as relieved as those in Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber that the Scottish Government’s Budget will introduce a pension-age winter heating payment for all Scottish pensioners. The SNP Government are doing the right thing by Scottish pensioners. Will he join me in urging the Labour Government here in Westminster to do the right thing by pensioners in England and Wales and give them back their winter fuel allowance as well?

What the hon. Gentleman has just proved is that the winter fuel payment in Scotland is actually devolved.

One of the consequences of the Budget was to remove £5 million of regeneration funding for Perth city centre. We got practically nothing from the levelling-up fund, save for that paltry £5 million, which the Secretary of State is taking away. Just what is it that the UK Government have against the city of Perth?

No projects have been cancelled. The Perth deal is under consideration by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Treasury. It has not been cancelled; it has merely been paused. The hon. Gentleman should speak to his colleagues in the Scottish Government, who have £4.9 billion extra in Barnett consequentials to spend today. Perhaps he could even have a chat with some of his colleagues sitting next to him, who seem happier in Holyrood than they are here.

Employer National Insurance: Hospices

7. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the potential impact of proposed changes to employer national insurance contributions on hospices in Scotland. (901535)

I know there is consensus right across this House on the enormous value of the hospice sector and the extraordinary work that it does—work that, sadly, has been undervalued for far too long. Support for additional employer national insurance contributions will be allocated to Departments, with the Barnett formula applying in the usual way for the devolved Governments. The rise does not begin until April, and we will set out further details on the allocation of funding in due course.

There are 45 hospices in Scotland—I cannot be certain of that figure, because so many of them are in dire financial circumstances. I think of Roxburghe House in Aberdeen, which provides services to my constituents and those of other MPs in this Chamber. Another organisation that provides vital hospice care is the Marie Curie charity, which provides services in Edinburgh and Glasgow. It also provides hospice-at-home care. The charity is facing a bill close to £3 million as a result of decisions made by this Government. What does the Minister have to say about the help that can be provided to Marie Curie and other organisations?

As the hon. Gentleman will know, the pressures on hospice funding long predate the Budget and relate to the decline in real-terms funding from the Scottish Government. I note that nearly 5,000 members of the public have written to the Scottish Government recently to support calls from the Scottish hospice leadership for fair funding. Those calls might be answered this afternoon when the SNP Government will have an extra £5 billion to spend. This was secured by Scottish Labour MPs but voted against by SNP MPs. It will be spent this afternoon by SNP Ministers. Make it make sense!

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Order. What are those two Members playing at? That is absolutely disgraceful. We have started PMQs. Either come in early or at least wait. Please start reading the room.

It is a pleasure to welcome His Highness the Amir of the state of Qatar to the UK. I look forward to discussions this afternoon on how we are strengthening our relationship and boosting trade and investment, including an announcement today of a £1 billion investment in our new clean energy partnership.

Sunday marked World Aids Day, and we stand with all those we have lost and those living with HIV today. We will seek to end new cases of HIV in England by 2030.

I also note that we are joined in the Gallery today by Mandy Damari, the mother of Emily, a British citizen still being held hostage in Gaza. I have met Mandy a number of times, and in my view what she is going through is nothing short of torture.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

I would like to concur with the comments the Prime Minister has just made. North Devon district hospital is the most remote hospital in mainland England. Its intensive care unit has only six beds, it is almost 50 years old, and it serves a population of 165,000 people. Can the Prime Minister assure my constituents that their hospital will receive the urgent funding that is needed under the new hospital programme, so that they will not face a more than two-hour drive to the nearest trauma unit?

The new hospital programme that we inherited was emblematic of the failures of the previous Government: making promises with no plan to deliver on them. We are committed to delivery, including the North Devon hospital. We are reviewing the programme to place it on a sustainable footing, and the Health Secretary will set out further details of the new delivery soon. In the meantime, we continue to support trusts to develop their schemes.

Q2.   I welcome the swift and decisive action this Government are taking to secure our borders after the Conservatives lost control. In particular, I welcome the world-first deal struck with Iraq last week to tackle smuggling gangs. Does the Prime Minister agree that international co-operation, shared intelligence and joint law enforcement are the best way to end the vile smuggling trade? (901615)

I thank my hon. Friend. She is a superb champion for her constituents, and she is absolutely right. The previous Government left a broken asylum system. We have put a plan in place: the Border Security Command, backed by £150 million; 100 more National Crime Agency officers; and we are introducing counter-terror-style powers. My hon. Friend is right to say that our new international co-ordination includes the landmark Iraq agreement. The hard graft is already beginning to pay off, because 9,400 people who have no right to be here have been returned. That is a 30% increase on the numbers of last year. The Conservatives promised to get the flights off the ground. We have got them off the ground.

I pay tribute to Mandy Damari and her family for the strength they have shown. We on this side of the House, and I am sure the whole House, continue to seek the speedy release of Emily Damari and the other hostages.

The Prime Minister talks about immigration, so it is probably a good time to remind him that he was the one writing letters asking us not to deport foreign criminals. He and his party voted against every single measure we put in place to try to limit immigration. The question today is what has been on the lips of all Labour MPs, including, I believe, the Health Secretary yesterday. The Prime Minister knowingly appointed a convicted fraudster to be his Transport Secretary. What was he thinking?

The previous Transport Secretary was right to resign when further information came forward. What a marked contrast to the behaviour of the last 14 years. The Leader of the Opposition talks about immigration. There were record levels of immigration under the previous Government, with net migration of nearly 1 million, and she was the cheerleader. She was the one urging the removal of the caps on work visas. She thanked the previous Home Secretary for the work that was done. She championed it, she advocated it—record levels of immigration.

He is obfuscating, but I am going to keep him on the topic. He owes the House an explanation. He says that the former Transport Secretary was asked to resign only after further information came to light. What was that further information?

I am not going to disclose private conversations. Further information came to light, and the Transport Secretary resigned. What a marked contrast. While the right hon. Lady is obsessing with Westminster issues, we are getting on with fixing the mess and fixing the foundations, with that £22 billion black hole, our prisons bursting and, as we found out last week, net migration of nearly 1 million because of the Tory open borders policy.

I am not asking about migration; I am asking about the former Transport Secretary. He never answers any questions, and it looks like he did not ask his Transport Secretary any questions either. The truth is that he appointed a person convicted of fraud to the Cabinet, and the first thing she did was bung hundreds of millions of pounds in pay rises to her trade union friends. Was this not a fraud on the British people?

No. She says she is not talking about immigration, and I am not surprised. I advise her not to talk about the economy or immigration for another five years.

He can try to change the topic as much as he likes, but the public are watching. He owes them an explanation. The country needs conviction politicians, not politicians with convictions.

Now, on to an even bigger fraud: the Budget. Last week, the Prime Minister failed to repeat the Chancellor’s pledge of no more borrowing and no more taxes. It is obvious that they are coming back for more. In his manifesto, he committed to making Britain the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Does he stand by his own pledge?

I gently remind the right hon. Lady that two of her predecessors had convictions for breaking the covid rules. I also invite her to look at this morning’s OECD report, which has upgraded growth for next year and the year after, putting us on target to be the fastest-growing major economy in Europe in the next two years. She should welcome that.

I have seen the OECD report, and what it says is that they will be coming back for more taxes. The whole House will have heard him fail to repeat his own pledge. He cannot even repeat the pledges he made just a few weeks ago. We are here to stop him damaging the economy, and that is why—[Interruption.]

They are laughing the same way they all laughed during the Budget, when they talked about raising national insurance. They have no idea what people out there are dealing with. That is why, yesterday, we voted against his damaging jobs tax.

Even former supporters such as the chef Tom Kerridge, who endorsed Labour at the election, say that the Budget was “catastrophic.” He built a real business employing young people, unlike this Cabinet of trade union stooges, CV embellishers and an actual fraudster. None of them has ever run a business. Why will the Prime Minister not listen to businesses who are saying his Budget is catastrophic?

I thought the scripted jokes were over, but we had another one and then lectures about the economy from the Conservative party that broke the economy, sent mortgages through the roof and left a £22 billion black hole. The right hon. Lady talks about national insurance. She complains about the rise in national insurance week after week, but then two weeks ago she said that she would not reverse it. She signed trade deals that had farmers protesting in Whitehall, but now she pretends that she is their champion. She campaigned to remove the cap on migrant worker visas, but now she pretends she is furious about the open borders policy of the last Government.

The fact is that the Prime Minister has discarded his own Labour leadership promises: he has dropped the five missions he said would define his Government; he has ditched his pledge to make Britain the fastest-growing economy in the G7—we left office with the UK as the fastest-growing economy in the G7—and business is saying he has damaged the economy with his Budget. Tomorrow he is going to have an emergency reset, just five months into his premiership, but why should anyone believe a word he says?

The only relaunch on the Conservative Benches is the leadership bids of the right hon. Lady’s rivals. She obviously has not read the OECD report published this morning: the fastest growth in the next two years of any major economy in Europe—we are proud of that. Opposition Members should never be allowed to forget the damage they did to our country. They used Britain like some sort of mad scientist’s experiment: open borders, unfunded tax cuts, a neglected health service. And now all the madness is still coming out, but they say they should be back in office. They have not listened, they have not learned, and they certainly have not changed. There is only one party that is driving this country forward, and that is this Labour Government.

Q3. Today it is Question 3 but, who knows, next week I could be No. 1 in the charts, as the first MP this year to bring out a Christmas single. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking my musical collaborator, the hugely talented Mal Pope, and everyone involved with this year’s “Everyone Deserves” hamper campaign, which will deliver festive food to 1,500 homes across five constituencies in south Wales? Like our song says, “There’s a reason for the season and everyone deserves a Christmas.” (901616)

I thank my hon. Friend for her Christmas single; there is obviously going to be some rivalry in the race for No. 1 by Christmas—I will not be joining that particular race. I thank her and Mal Pope for their campaigning. I remember joining her a few summers ago in the work involving the hampers, which are much needed by her constituents. I know how much it means to them. Christmas is a time to think of others, and I pay tribute to her and all those supporting those in need. This Government will always support the most vulnerable in our society.

I, for one, will be downloading the song by the hon. Member for Neath and Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), and I join the Prime Minister in his delight about it. I also join him in support for Mandy Damari, and our joint hope that we will see Emily and other hostages released as soon as possible.

The Prime Minister has rightly spoken about the need to restore and rebuild the public’s trust in British politics. We believe a crucial part of that is reforming our electoral system to make it fairer and more proportional, and so do a majority of the British public. This House voted yesterday in favour of a Bill for electoral reform put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). Will the Prime Minister make Government time available so we can consider that Bill about electoral reform and restore the public’s trust in our politics?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for referencing Emily. It is important that we all remember her and the awful torture that her mother is going through, as is the case for all the other hostages. It is hard to imagine what it must be like for anybody with friends or family who are still being held hostage after all this time.

Proportional representation is not our policy and we will not be making time for it. I will just gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that he did not do too badly under the system as it is.

I am disappointed in that reply and hope that the Prime Minister will reflect on Labour’s policy.

Moving on to another pressing subject, more than 3 million people have been stuck on NHS waiting lists for more than 18 weeks. That is probably the worst, most appalling legacy of the last Conservative Government and it needs to be fixed. Does the Prime Minister accept that we will only get waiting lists down, and keep them down, if it is easier for everyone to see a GP when they need it? When he publishes his milestones tomorrow, will he include a guarantee with a timetable so that people will be able to see a GP within at least seven days, or 24 hours if it is urgent?

The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the record of the last Government on the NHS: record waiting lists and record low confidence in the NHS. In addition to the economy and immigration, they had better not be talking about that for the last five years either.

We will be driving that down. We have already begun that work to make sure that we get those waiting lists down, and yes, of course, that includes making sure there is better access to GPs and other measures that need to be taken. That is a central driving mission of this Government.

Q5. Given that a significant number of Members of this place are, regardless of class, women of a certain age, does the Prime Minister agree that when a woman of a certain age—or indeed any woman, of any age and from any background—says that they have experienced sexual harassment or inappropriate behaviour, they should be listened to and supported and the perpetrator dealt with? (901618)

I certainly agree with that, and I think everybody across the House would. My hon. Friend is right, because one of the greatest barriers that women face when coming forward to report unacceptable behaviour in the workplace is having confidence that they will be taken seriously. That requires all of us to put in place mechanisms and arrangements to make that possible. Everybody should be treated with dignity and respect, and I am proud of the fact that our Employment Rights Bill will strengthen protections from sexual harassment at work.

Friday the 13th is a date associated with bad things happening. Next Friday, the European Union’s general product safety regulation will apply in Northern Ireland, creating more costs and bureaucracy for English, Scottish and Welsh companies that want to do business in Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland consumers buying from them. Many businesses have already stopped supplying Northern Ireland. Haulage companies are unsure of what is required of them. Online sales platforms are divided on the advice they give. A previous Prime Minister promised Northern Ireland businesses that if they were asked to complete additional paperwork, they should phone him and he would

“direct them to throw that form in the bin.”

What direct, tangible advice can the Prime Minister give to those businesses that want to continue supplying Northern Ireland?

That is a serious issue and the Government are working closely with businesses to ensure that they are ready for the changes that the hon. Gentleman has identified. We published more guidance yesterday, as he knows, to support them further. We will be keeping a close eye on the issue to help businesses trade freely across the whole of the United Kingdom.

Q6. In Stoke-on-Trent and Kidsgrove we are proud of our beautiful historic buildings. However, many of them lie dormant and blight our proud towns. Will the Prime Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to bring historic buildings back into use, and will he make time to visit my constituency to see for himself our untapped potential? (901619)

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue and I will certainly consider his kind invitation. We will invest in heritage buildings, restoring pride and ensuring that they serve the needs of local communities. The National Lottery Heritage Fund has awarded Stoke-on-Trent £250,000 to help preserve the city’s heritage. Historic England is also funding emergency repairs at the iconic Wedgewood Institute and supporting Re-form Heritage—whose office, I think, is based in my hon. Friend’s constituency—to employ staff dedicated to delivering heritage projects.

Q4. Today is the Scottish Budget, which contains provisions to reinstate the winter fuel payment for all Scottish pensioners—something that the Prime Minister famously took away from nearly all UK pensioners, supported by Scottish Labour Members of Parliament. But apparently Scottish Labour is now in favour of the winter fuel payment, so what is his advice to Labour MSPs? Is it to vote for the Budget, to ensure that Scottish pensioners get that single fuel payment, or is to stick with his view and vote that Budget down? (901617)

My advice to my team is to ensure that the SNP is absolutely clear that we have given the biggest settlement to Scotland this year in our Budget. The Scottish Government now have the powers and the resources. They have no more excuses for their failure to deliver.

Q7.   A year ago today, this House defeated the then Government over the contaminated blood scandal compensation scheme. It is welcome that the present Government have set aside £11.8 billion for that compensation scheme, but as victims die every week, there is concern about the pace of payments, and the fact that rules are being changed behind closed doors in Whitehall without explanation, contradicting some of Sir Brian Langstaff’s recommendations. Does my right hon. Friend agree that next week’s meeting scheduled with the campaign groups representing the victims must represent the start of those infected and affected being involved in a process that they fought so hard for, and for so long, and that too many died and failed to see? (901620)

We are committed to acting on the findings of the infected blood inquiry, and ensuring swift resolution and compensating in full. That is why we announced £11.8 billion to compensate those who waited far too long for justice. I will happily make sure that my hon. Friend gets a meeting with the Paymaster General to discuss the issues that he has raised.

Q8.  Every day, pensioners in my Leicester South constituency are emailing me with one word: “frightened.” Susan, who has pulmonary fibrosis, wrote:“During winter I rarely go out as it’s too cold for my lungs. I need to keep warm and the heating on. The winter fuel payment was really helpful. I want MPs to know not all pensioners are millionaires (or receive gifts from millionaires), nor do we all get the higher rate of pension”.Susan is frightened that she will not be able to keep her house warm this winter, and she is not alone. Does the Prime Minister realise how frightening it is for the 8,100 pensioners in my constituency who have lost their winter fuel payment? As the winter months start to bite, will he come to Leicester to explain to Susan why he thinks this policy is not frightening? (901621)

As the hon. Member knows, the No. 1 job of this Government was to get our finances back in order after the mess that the last Government made, including leaving a £22 billion black hole. We had to make tough choices. The Opposition say that they want the benefits, but cannot say how they are going to pay for them. We want to make sure that the most vulnerable pensioners get the pension credit that they are entitled to. We are driving that up, and because we are stabilising the economy we can commit to the triple lock. That means a £460 uplift in the pension next year, so every pensioner will be better off under a Labour Government.

Q9.  The Middlewich eastern bypass will support the delivery of nearly 2,000 new homes, 6,500 jobs and 1.5 million square feet of employment land. The previous Government, having first promised to fund it, dragged their feet, putting jobs and investment at risk. We are approaching the season of good will, so can the Prime Minister give my constituents an early Christmas present and offer some certainty about this vital infrastructure project? (901622)

We are committed to supporting drivers across the country, including by freezing fuel duty and investing £1.6 billion to maintain our roads. That is £500 million more than in the previous year. I know that my hon. Friend’s constituents have waited years for certainty on this scheme. The project is currently going through a Government assessment process, and I will make sure that he gets a meeting with the roads Minister to discuss it.

Q10. The major GP practice groups in my constituency have written to me, detailing their precarious finances. They are considering their options as they plan for the year ahead, including redundancies, handing back their contracts or bankruptcy, and they have stopped recruiting GPs, resulting in fewer patient appointments. The Health Secretary has promised an increased funding allocation but has yet to say when we will know how much it will be. Will the Prime Minister release the funding information and meet me and the GPs to hear at first hand about the pressures they are facing? (901623)

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this. The Darzi report, which we commissioned, made it clear that the NHS was broken by the previous Government, and that is why we provided £22 billion of additional funding in the Budget this year to start the work of fixing our NHS. We do obviously value the vital work of GPs and, as he knows, we consult every year with the sector about the services they provide and the money they are entitled to in return, and we will set that out in the usual way.

Q11.  Hollie Gazzard was murdered by her boyfriend outside her workplace in Gloucester 10 years ago. Since then, her family have established the Hollie Gazzard Trust, which educates young people on domestic abuse and stalking, and keeps women safe with its Hollie Guard app. Will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to Hollie’s family and the work of the Hollie Gazzard Trust, and will he update the House on the steps the Government are taking to tackle violence against women and girls? (901624)

A decade on, I am sure the thoughts of the whole House remain with Hollie’s family and friends. I join my hon. Friend in commending the vital work of the Hollie Gazzard Trust. In relation to the steps we are taking, we have a mission to halve the levels of violence against women and girls within a decade. That is really tough to do—nobody has ever committed to that before. I invite everybody across the House in join us in that. That will include, among the steps we are taking, placing domestic abuse experts in 999 control rooms, to ensure that abuse is picked up early; launching a pilot of new domestic abuse protection orders; developing a national framework to track and target high-harm offenders; and strengthening stalking prevention orders. We will take other measures to make good on that commitment.

Q12. A WASPI—Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign—woman dies every 13 minutes. That is two women since the Prime Minister took to the Dispatch Box today, and it is 111 women every day, and nearly 17,000 since he took office. How many more WASPI women have to die before the Government take action to give them the financial redress and justice that they are due? (901625)

We are moving at pace on all relevant issues. We passed the Budget to provide the baseline for what we need, and we will continue to do so.

Q13. Local councils in my constituency are facing significant financial pressures on special educational needs and disabilities provision. In Wokingham borough, for example, the SEND incidence is twice the national average, yet historically the level of funding has not met the level of need, and that has left families and children waiting too long for help. The previous Government’s safety valve programme was only a sticking plaster, so I welcome this Government’s announcement today of additional SEND funding in mainstream schools. What more can the Government do to make SEND funding sustainable? (901626)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this—I think this is the fifth or sixth time that SEND has been raised at Prime Minister’s questions. We inherited a system neglected to the point of crisis by the last Government, and so we will deliver the change that is desperately needed. That means increasing funding to the core schools budget by £2.3 billion, which includes almost £1 billion more on high needs budgets. Today we are announcing investment of £740 million to create SEN units in mainstream schools which deliver specialist support, and I am very pleased to take that forward.

Q14. Members across this House are deeply concerned that the Post Office is considering closing more than 100 branches across our communities. More than 3,000 people have signed a petition opposing the closure of Bexhill post office. Does the Prime Minister agree that the Government must ensure that we protect vital post office services for all our constituents? (901627)

I recognise the campaigning of many, including the hon. Gentleman, on local services that their constituents rely on. The Post Office is required to maintain a network of 11,500 branches and to ensure that 99% of the UK population lives within 3 miles of a post office. Decisions about individual branches are for the Post Office to take, following consultation with local communities, but I am happy to ensure that he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss his particular case.

In my constituency it is full steam ahead to 2025, when our town celebrates the 200-year anniversary of the railways with a nine-month festival. We are proud of our industrial contribution, but many in my area have concerns about the future of our rail industry. What assurances can the PM offer that he will get our railways back on track?

We are delivering on our commitment to bring railways back under public ownership, putting passengers first. Today, we have announced that South Western Railway services will be the first to transfer into public ownership next year, so that we can turn the page on decades of delay, fragmentation and failure.

Q15. Veteran Anne Puckridge is in the Gallery, and I urge the Prime Minister to meet her to talk about her frozen pension. Yesterday, the Daily Record reported that Scottish Labour MPs are very “upset”. Apparently, that upset is caused by their Scottish leader’s diktat that they now have to support the very winter fuel payment that they voted against in this place. As the Prime Minister comforts his upset MPs, will he remind them that the only people with the right to be upset are the 900,000 Scottish pensioners who were left in the cold by Labour’s cuts? (901628)

I work very closely with Scottish Labour in a harmonious way. We ran a fantastic campaign earlier this year, which is why the hon. Lady is sitting on the Benches at the back, not the Benches at the front.

I echo the words of Members across the House about Mandy Damari, who I also met this week, and who is from Beckenham.

Yesterday marked International Day of Persons with Disabilities, and I am proud to be one of the disabled MPs in this House. As a sixth-former, I became one of the youngest people in Britain to have a hip replacement, and I relied on a blue badge. Data released yesterday shows that blue badge theft has more than quadrupled in the past 10 years. Will the Prime Minister back my campaign to tackle blue badge theft and ensure that millions of disabled people can work, socialise and live an independent life?

I thank my hon. Friend for being a powerful voice for some of the most vulnerable in our society. Theft of a blue badge is appalling, depriving people of their independence and ability to travel with confidence. It has a real human impact every single time. That is why we are working closely with local authorities to help them tackle fraud and misuse, and I will make sure that my hon. Friend has a meeting with the relevant Minister to examine what more can be done.

Following on from the question asked by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), in the Gallery today is Anne Puckridge, a world war two veteran and an intense campaigner. She has flown over 5,000 miles from Canada to meet the Prime Minister to discuss frozen pensions, a policy that is denying her and half a million Brits who live abroad an increase in their pensions. I am sure Anne will not mind me saying that she will be 100 years old in a couple of days’ time. Will the Prime Minister reconsider his decision, and give Anne the best birthday present ever and meet her to discuss this issue?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. I think he will well know and understand that our position is a continuation of the position under the last Government.

Does the Prime Minister share my concern at a report by Audit Scotland, which has found that the Scottish Government have no clear plan for the NHS in Scotland? As a Scottish Labour MP, I am delighted that this Government are providing £4.9 billion extra for public services in Scotland. Is it not time for SNP Ministers to get a grip and do better for patients in my constituency, who face some of the longest waiting times for surgery in Scotland?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, because waiting lists in Scotland are appalling. That is why we make the argument that, now that the Scottish Government have the money and the resources, there are no more excuses for poor delivery.

Point of Order

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on yesterday’s debate about a jobs tax on working people who are not working people—it depends on the definition of “working people.” The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury claimed that the Office for Budget Responsibility stated there was a cover-up by the previous Government. In column 203 of Hansard, we see the words used by the Minister: he said that the OBR used the words “cover-up” not once but twice. I have since checked with the OBR. It has not said this; I believe it is a creative use of words to suit a political narrative. Could you advise me on how I could bring the Minister to the House to correct the record?

If no one on the Government Front Bench wants to, I will deal with this. First, I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving notice of the point of order. I understand that he has notified the Exchequer Secretary that he intended to refer to this matter in the Chamber, and I thank him for doing that. The Chair is not responsible for what Ministers say in the Chamber; that has historically been the case. However, he certainly has put the record straight in his view, and I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench will have noted his remarks, and will reflect on them. Let me put it that way.

Public Body Ethnicity Data (Inclusion of Jewish and Sikh Categories)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that, where a public body collects data about ethnicity for the purpose of delivering public services, it must include specific “Sikh” and “Jewish” categories as options for a person’s ethnic group; and for connected purposes.

Jews and Sikhs are in the unique position of being considered both ethnic and religious groups under the Equality Act 2010. Sikhs and Jews have been legally recognised as ethnic groups for over 40 years, since the Mandla v. Dowell Lee case in 1983. The Bill would address a fundamental absurdity in the fight against discrimination and inequality, which is that we have not collected ethnicity data on Sikhs and Jews since laws on racial discrimination were first introduced nearly 60 years ago.

The Women and Equalities Committee was told in February 2018 that the Government’s race disparity audit had identified around 340 datasets across Government, but found no data on Sikhs. The only data collected on Sikhs and Jews in more recent years is religious data. However, the quality of data collected by public bodies on religion, as opposed to ethnicity, is poor, patchy and incomplete. Religion data is never used by public bodies to make decisions for the purposes of delivering public services. This makes both Jews and Sikhs invisible to policymakers, ignoring the inequality and discrimination that both groups face. That is why a specific Jewish and Sikh ethnic category is needed, and that is what this Bill will create.

This is a campaign to end the discrimination that both communities face. I campaigned for a Sikh and Jewish ethnicity tick box to be included in the 2021 census, because we know that for over 30 years, public bodies have been instructed to use the census’s ethnic groups questions to design and deliver services in compliance with equalities legislation. Given that we are talking about protected characteristics, we would expect public bodies to be instructed to routinely collect information on Sikhs and Jews, but they are not.

The then Minister with responsibility for equalities, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), wrote this to me last year:

“public bodies and decision-makers who think that their decisions may affect discrimination, harassment, or victimisation of Sikhs…should ensure that their compliance with the duty includes considerations of Sikh ethnicity.”

However, they do not, because people incorrectly argue, and assume, that data collected on religion is a suitable substitute. Those people do not understand existing practices. Religion data is rarely collected to a good standard. It excludes non-practising Sikhs and Jews, and it is not used by public bodies to monitor and reduce inequalities or provide public services. The latter is key to this argument, because Sikhs and Jews are missing from whole swathes of public data—on education, housing, crime, health, criminal justice, the public sector workforce and the ethnicity pay gap.

The Bill would allow public bodies to start systematically collecting data on Sikhs and Jews to address the discrimination and inequalities that they face, which is especially relevant as the Government have made a commitment to requiring ethnicity pay gap reporting. In presenting this Bill, I have the support of a wide range of community organisations, including the Sikh Council, 112 UK gurdwaras and organisations, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Antisemitism Policy Trust and the Community Security Trust.

I would like to provide the House with a few examples of why this Bill is so important. The pandemic shone a harsh light on the inequalities between different ethnic groups. Many experts in public health now accept that we were too slow to recognise that some ethnic groups were dying at a far higher rate than others. The Office for National Statistics belatedly started analysing covid-related deaths data by religious group where data was available, a short-term exercise that has since been discontinued. It found that Sikhs died disproportionately from covid even after adjusting for region, population density, area deprivation, household composition, socioeconomic status and a range of other economic indicators. Not only that, but it showed that Sikhs were affected at a very different rate from other predominantly south Asian groups, meaning that analysis using the existing ethnic minority categories would fail to capture any of these inequalities.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews has also recognised these arguments. British Jews died at almost twice the rate of the rest of the population, as there is a higher prevalence of certain genetic conditions among Jewish people—for example, of breast cancer in Ashkenazi Jewish women. Collecting better data will help public services to profile and respond to the community better. To address health inequalities, we need to learn from the pandemic, and we need to collect accurate data to ensure better outcomes for both these communities, based on evidence.

To give just one example that highlights the absurdity of this system, NHS Blood and Transplant does not collect data on Sikh organ donors or Sikhs requiring an organ transplant, despite the fact that for more than a decade, there has been a policy of encouraging more Sikhs to become donors. NHS Blood and Transplant does not gather the single most important data point that would allow us to improve sign-up rates among this under-represented group. It is shocking.

As Amanda Bowman, vice-president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, wrote last year:

“Imagine you’re sitting in a hospital waiting room and have been asked to fill out a form which, among other questions, asks for your ethnicity…So which box do I tick?”

As David Baddiel, the author of “Jews Don’t Count”, has said:

“It is othering and alienating”

that Jews do not have a distinct ethnic box to reflect their race.

Since 7 October, the British Jewish community has faced an appalling rise in antisemitic hate attacks. While the Home Office collects data on religiously motivated antisemitic hate crimes, it does not do so on racially aggravated antisemitism. That is despite instances of racial hate crime outnumbering instances of religiously aggravated hate crime by 10 to one. There is a serious risk that Jewish hate crimes are being undercounted by the Home Office because it does not have its own Jewish ethnic category.

In the first half of this year, the Community Security Trust found that the majority of antisemitic incidents that it recorded consisted of “anti-Jewish discourse” linking the victim

“to Israel, Palestine, the Hamas terror attack or the subsequent war.”

According to Crown Prosecution Service prosecution guidance, hate targeting someone’s real or perceived nationality or national origins, such as a link to Israel, would indicate a racially, not religiously, aggravated offence.

The same goes for Sikhs, as is documented in the all-party group on British Sikhs report on anti-Sikh hate. Sikhs are the most visible minority in Britain, yet we do not collect data on racist anti-Sikh hate. The last Government’s hate crime action plan effectively ignored Sikh hate, or the need to define anti-Sikh hate. Herein lies the fundamental problem with focusing on data relating to religion, rather than ethnicity, when it comes to Sikhs and Jews. Religion is not a mandatory field in crime reporting standards that the Home Office sets for police forces, apart from in religiously aggravated hate crime cases. However, police forces are required to record ethnicity, or use ethnic appearance codes that relate to census categories that do not include Sikhs and Jews, despite their recognition in the Equality Act 2010. His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services has produced at least 30 reports since 2017 criticising police forces for the poor recording of data on the ethnicity of victims of crime.

Let me give a final example. In October, the chief executive of the UK Jewish film festival warned of the

“erasure of British-Jewish culture from national cultural life”

by arts bodies, which are of course largely publicly funded. Benjamin Till, a composer who has been nominated for a British Academy of Film and Television Arts award, told the Jewish Chronicle that Arts Council England

“doesn’t allow Jewish people to identify as anything other than a religion”.

He insists that Arts Council England

“must accept that Jewishness is a cultural, and…an ethnic identity.”

As the all-party group on British Sikhs and the Board of Deputies of British Jews have warned, even on its own merits, using religious questions to capture data on our communities will increasingly become irrelevant. The percentage of Sikhs and Jews who identify with their ethnic group but do not practise their religion is growing. As Britain becomes increasingly secular, we are failing to recognise the other ways in which British Sikhs and Jews face discrimination. Ethnicity data can capture that in ways that religion data does not. As the Board of Deputies of British Jews has said:

“We are concerned that until this situation is rectified, many Jewish citizens will not feel fully counted.”

A former cabinet member for public health and protection on Sandwell council says that Sikhs and Jews are forgotten when it comes to the design of services because there is no ethnicity data on Jews and Sikhs to inform those decisions.

In the rare cases where we do have some data, it exposes glaring inequalities. In 2018, 5.3% of deaths of homeless people in London were of Sikhs, who are 1.3% of London’s general population; and 27% of Sikhs in the UK report that someone in their family has an alcohol addiction. Good quality data saves lives.

In the past few years, the Office for National Statistics has come to acknowledge the need to ensure that the ethnicity standard reflects the diversity of the UK population. That surely means it is time to address the injustice facing Sikh and Jewish people. Whatever the future of ethnicity data collection, we must routinely be included in our own right. If we consider our legal status as ethnic groups, we should be included. If we consider the size of our populations, we should be included. If we consider our contribution to Great Britain and society, we should be included. If we consider the specific forms of discrimination and the inequalities we face, we should be included.

Our communities are asking for fairness and justice and to be counted as ethnic groups, given that we have been recognised as such in law for more than 40 years. As David Baddiel has argued,

“identifying antisemitism as religious intolerance, rather than racism, downgrades its importance, which is what leads to Jews not counting.”

The same goes for Sikhs, and it is not just a rhetorical point; it is literally the case that regarding Sikhs and Jews as a religious category means we are not counted. We are not counted when we fill in a form in an NHS waiting room, we are not counted in the census and local councils do not count us in the data they use to monitor and deliver services. It is high time that changed, so I urge Members across the House to allow this Bill to progress today. It is high time that public bodies ended this injustice, and as legislators we must put right this wrong and support them in doing that.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Preet Kaur Gill, Ben Coleman, Jas Athwal, Jon Pearce, David Pinto-Duschinsky, Joani Reid and Alex Sobel present the Bill.

Preet Kaur Gill accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the first time; to be read a Second time on Friday 7 March 2025, and to be printed (Bill 142).

Opposition Day

4th Allotted Day

Farming and Inheritance Tax

I beg to move,

That this House regrets that the Government has undone its promises to farmers, and is seeking to punish them with Inheritance Tax bills of hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of pounds by cutting Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief; further regrets that the Government has provided conflicting information on the number of farms that will be affected, and has not conducted an impact assessment of this approach; notes that figures from the National Farmers’ Union suggest that some three quarters of farms will be affected; further notes that farmers tend to be asset-rich but cash-poor and that figures from the Country Land and Business Association suggest the average arable farm will have to sell 20% of its land to pay the Inheritance Tax bill that this policy will cause; notes that the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers anticipates that this will affect 75,000 owners of farming businesses over a generation; notes also that this land is not guaranteed to be used for food production if sold; and calls on the Government not to impose the cuts to Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief set out in the Budget that will lead to the end of family farming as it has been known for many generations in the UK.

This Government have driven farmers to despair. The hike in national insurance, the acceleration of delinked payments, the fertiliser tax, the double cab tax, the stalling of capital grants, the scrapping of the rural services delivery grant and the slowing down of applications to farming schemes are all conspiring against our rural economy and the survival of British farms. Yet the Government have added a death tax to that: the family farm tax, which is seeing families across the United Kingdom worry about whether they will be able to hand on their farms to their children, as generations before them have done.

In the 36 days since Labour’s Budget, the Chancellor, the Secretary of State and Ministers have tried to justify their family farm tax, which will break up family farms, by claiming that only 500 farms will be affected each year. Awkwardly, the figures used by the Chancellor are contradicted by figures produced by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The left hand does not know what the far-left hand is doing. When the figure was queried by the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tenant Farmers Association, farmers across the United Kingdom and us Conservatives, Ministers told us all rather patronisingly that we did not understand and that farmers should seek professional advice. Well, farmers have sought professional advice, which has revealed just how badly wrong the non-economist Chancellor has got her numbers.

In a moment.

Since the Budget, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers has analysed the family farm tax and applied tax law and the realities of modern-day farming to it. Its analysis has revealed that up to 75,000 individual owners of farming businesses could be affected over the coming generation, even before inflation, which is the equivalent of five times the Government’s figure of 500 farms affected in 2026-27. How could they have got this so wrong? It is because this city-dwelling Chancellor, Secretary of State and Exchequer Secretary do not understand modern farming or the countryside that they have overlooked a major area of tax policy and forgotten to consider thousands of farmers.

As the Exchequer Secretary has confirmed, the Government forgot to include one of the three routes to the relief in their calculations. They have not included business property relief-only claims in their figures, which means that as many as 14,000 tenant farmers who cannot claim agricultural property relief because they do not own the land on which they farm are absent from their calculations. What is worse is that Ministers do not know how many farmers are affected by that.

The city-dwelling Chancellor and Secretary of State have also forgotten about the farmers who in years gone by followed professional advice and transferred their farms into companies or partnerships. Those farmers will claim only BPR, so they have been left out of the calculations. Again, Ministers do not know how many farmers are in that position.

I will in a minute.

I am told by advisers that some farmers choose to use BPR only because it is easier in probate. Guess what? Yet again, Ministers do not know how many farms are in that position, and they have not been included.

I will give way first to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and then to the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). I have so much more to say.

I commend the shadow Minister for bringing forward the debate. The collective decision to have this debate in the House is one that my farmers and constituents very much support. Professional legal advice sought through the Ulster Farmers Union—I must declare an interest as a member of the union—indicates that somewhere in the region of 65% of small farmers and family farms in Northern Ireland will be affected. When it comes to understanding that, has Labour really got no idea what is going on?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening. The evidence is building again and again against the assurances that the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Exchequer Secretary and the farming Minister have given the House. Frankly, the farmers outside deserve better, and so do we as Members of Parliament.

I will give way to the hon. Lady and then carry on with the calculations that the Government have got so wrong.

The right hon. Member left a trail of destruction across the Government. She was the Health Secretary who broke the NHS, the Prisons Minister who ran out of prison places and the Treasury Minister who crashed the economy—no wonder her constituency majority crashed from 28,000 to 5,000. [Interruption.] Does she not think it is time to apologise and for once to support the Government, who are bringing back stability to the British economy and farmers’ profitability?

Order. I know that Members are jeering about reading. I know that when I came to the House it was a rule that you should not read, but both sides are doing it. Remember that.

This point of order is spontaneous, unlike that intervention. [Interruption.] I am Mr Spontaneity.

Mr Speaker, you are entirely right that many right hon. and hon. Members read their speeches almost verbatim, but surely it is just rude and discourteous to the House for the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) to read a supposedly spontaneous intervention as if it had just come into her mind. She managed to find a typewriter and a printer in order to write down two pages of intervention.

As the first female Prime Minister said, if they are going after you personally, it means you are winning the argument.

Let me help the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby with the second set of calculations that her Chancellor has got so wrong, because the Chancellor’s cockeyed accounting extends to the claim that farmers will be able to transfer £3 million tax-free. That is wrong. Only a few in a specific set of circumstances will be able to claim that magic figure. [Interruption.] There are jeers from Government Members, but that amount is not available to widows, it is not available to people who are single and it is not available to people who own a farm with another relative. Labour’s magic £3 million figure assumes that the surviving spouse lives some sort of monastic existence where they have no personal effects to pass on to their loved ones. As farmers from Sussex have asked, why are widows’ families being targeted?

A family wrote to me about their mother, who is a widow. They have calculated that they face an additional £200,000 tax bill from Labour because their father died before the Budget and so did not know to transfer his allowance.

We know that some Labour Members of Parliament have concerns. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), who represents over 500 farms—I do not know whether he is in his place—has asked for assurances on the accuracy of figures used by the Government. Given the demolition of the Chancellor’s figures by the CAAV and many others, will he vote for the family farms in his constituency or will he toe the party line?

The CAAV’s concern about the figures being peddled by the Government is shared by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, CBI Economics and even the Office for Budget Responsibility. But it is not just about the numbers: Labour Members need to understand the emotional toll of this terrible tax. It is the worry, the distress and the sense of betrayal felt by families that should stop ambitious Labour MPs in their tracks before they parrot without question the figures given to them by their Ministers.

I will give way to the hon. Lady. I hope that she does not fall into the category that I just described.

The right hon. Lady talks about the figures. Does she accept that her Government’s record was one of leaving £300 million of the farming budget unspent in the Treasury coffers, not helping farmers?

I thank the hon. Lady sincerely for raising that point, because she has—perhaps unwittingly—identified a contradiction in DEFRA’s own claims. It talks about a £300 million underspend, but last week it was cancelling the very capital grants that farmers around the country have been investing in, saying that it had run out of money. Well, it cannot be both. Perhaps that is yet another example of the cockeyed accounting of the Chancellor and the Environment Secretary.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is quite frightening about this policy is that perhaps the Government know exactly what they are doing, and that, a bit like “Animal Farm”, they think everything should be collectivised?

My right hon. Friend, who has a wonderful way with words, asks a question that many members of rural communities up and down the United Kingdom are asking themselves. In fact, when the Prime Minister did regional media a couple of weeks ago, Sean Dunderdale, the wonderful presenter on BBC Radio Lincolnshire, asked him what he had got against the people of Lincolnshire. I might ask: what have this Labour Government got against the countryside?

As my right hon. Friend has said, the word “betrayal” is fitting because, long before the election, pledges were given, by both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, that these changes would not be made.

Order. The right hon. Member is a very experienced Member of this House, and he knows that he is meant to address the Chair, not the Front Bench.

Mr Speaker, I know that you, as a man of integrity and honour, will be as disappointed as I am that the Government should promise one thing and then do the exact opposite.

It is a great pleasure to have the right hon. Gentleman not just as a friend but as my Lincolnshire neighbour. He has put his finger on the point—genuinely, it is the next paragraph in my speech.

Some Labour MPs must be haunted by the phrasing from the Secretary of State during the general election campaign—because I suspect that they repeated it up and down the market towns and villages in their constituencies—when he described fears that Labour would impose this family farm tax as “desperate nonsense”. Labour candidates will have repeated that line and assured the farming families in their constituencies that Labour would never treat rural communities in that way, yet within weeks the Chancellor was planning to do exactly that.

Since then, families across the country have been trying to work out how to pick up the pieces after Labour’s family farm tax bomb. They will not forget. A farmer from Derbyshire emailed me this week to say:

“Our hard work and investment as a family has been wiped away in the stroke of a pen.”

They went on to say:

“My 60 year old husband had a bleed on the brain in June and thankfully has made a full recovery but I’ve never seen him so stressed. He doesn’t know what to do”.

Hon. Members representing seats in Derbyshire may wish to reflect on how they will respond to that. A farmer from Northumberland has written to me as follows:

“We had to talk about which one of my parents are going to die first, in front of them.”

He said that Labour is

“destroying people’s lives with this policy. Many of us are worried about the mental state of many within agriculture and are concerned that it may be the final straw for some.”

In fairness, the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who is in his place, has voiced concerns about whether his Government are listening to ordinary people about this. Will he vote for his farmers or will he toe the party line?

As a farmer’s wife, I understand the emotional impact that my right hon. Friend sets out so clearly. This is about not only the farmers who will be affected but all the farmers who know that they might be affected. This is a tax on tragedy, and no one knows if it will befall them.

My hon. Friend and Lincolnshire neighbour sets out exactly the personal impact of the tax. I know how Treasury Ministers look at spreadsheets and those terribly impressive packs of information from civil servants. [Interruption.] I remind Government Members that this is deeply serious; it is not a joke. I also know that Chancellor after Chancellor has looked at the figures and come to the conclusion that this is a political decision. The current Chancellor has got it wrong.

The shadow Secretary of State made an important point about the health and wellbeing of our farmers. As operation waiting times were almost three times higher when she was Health Secretary than they were in 2010, does she not welcome the investment that this Government are putting into our NHS? [Interruption.]

Do not worry; I will deal with that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the important issue of mental health in farming across the national health service. I was proud to work, as a Member of Parliament and as Secretary of State for Health, to massively increase investment in mental health services. If he is a rural MP, I am sure that he will know how isolated farmers can be and the pressures on their emotions at the best of times—they have the weather, diseases and crop cycles to contend with. This pressure merely adds to that, as we have already heard from farmers who have contacted me.

I also gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the family farm tax—or tax on tragedy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) called it so bleakly—will raise £500 million in 2026-27. According to the King’s Fund, that is equivalent to about a day’s worth of services in the NHS in England. It will not be quite the game changer that some in the hon. Gentleman’s party believe it to be.

What about the family in the south-west whose beloved father died a decade ago in tragic circumstances, leaving three young children who are now in their teens? The mother has run the farm and brought up their children in the midst of their grief. She has now been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness at the age of 50. Two of the children want to carry on the farm when they reach 18 but, should the unthinkable happen and they lose their mum, they will be saddled with Labour’s family farm tax of £700,000. What empathetic and meaningful response does the Secretary of State, who is not in his place—where is he?—or the Treasury Minister have for that family? They will be watching and listening.

We took the unusual step of giving lots of notice to Labour MPs that we would debate Labour’s family farm tax today. We did that because we wanted to give Labour MPs in rural seats time to reflect and consider whether they can continue to support this vindictive tax. For example, a Welsh landowner told me that he will have to sell six tenanted farms to pay Labour’s family farm tax. That is six farming families—who we on the Opposition Benches would describe as working people—who will lose their businesses, their family homes and their children’s farming futures. Those six farming families have been forgotten by this Government.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) has called on the Treasury to produce its modelling on the impact on family farms. Will the Treasury do that, at the Back Bencher’s request? How will he vote today? The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) met farmers earlier this month and claimed that she would take their concerns back to Westminster. Will she raise those today and vote against this tax?

I have consulted widely with farming communities and farmers in my constituency. I have not been able to identify a single farmer who feels that there is anything good in this policy whatsoever. Does my right hon. Friend know whether there is a single Labour Member of Parliament representing a rural community who genuinely believes that they will be voting in their constituents’ interests tonight?

I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for setting out clearly the choice ahead of Members across the House. We on the Opposition Benches know who we are standing up for. We back our farmers. We understand how difficult farming is as a way of life. It will be for individual Members of Parliament to decide how they vote.

The right hon. Lady talked about choices and backing farmers. The current Leader of the Opposition did a trade deal with Australia and New Zealand that sold farmers down the river. Is that her version of backing British farmers?

I am pretty sure that the hon. Gentleman has his facts wrong about the then Trade Secretary. The Conservative party is in favour of trade deals, but we want trade deals that best support our farming industry. [Interruption.] Before Labour Members start shouting at me, he will know that the fears and concerns about those trade deals have not come to fruition. What is more, we as Conservatives are proud of the fact that we would not enter trade deals that require the flooding to these shores of chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef. I also gently remind the hon. Gentleman that, as a Back Bencher, talking about foreign territories given the context of the debate about the Chagos islands is a bit brave.

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the devastating effect of this policy and to highlight the incredible rounding-up exercise on the Treasury account books of the contribution that it will make to NHS expenditure. With the Labour party having a serious foothold in rural constituencies for the first time since 1945, does she not find this rather inept politics, which is perhaps not surprising from such a London-centric Front Bench? The policy shows a wilful ignorance of rural life and a deliberate attempt not to understand the pressures and is, in essence, selling those rural Labour MPs down the river.

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. There is some interesting polling coming out today, which I will deal with. Of course, Mr Speaker, I very much accept your point about trade, but we are genuinely concerned about the national security implications of the Chagos islands deal.

Very much so, Mr Speaker. I will give way to the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). Is he going to speak up for his farmers?

I commend the right hon. Lady’s commitment to honesty. She talks about giving Labour Members advance sight of the Opposition day motion, but when did the Labour Whips Office receive the title of the Opposition day debate? May I invite her to correct the record perhaps?

I am so sorry—in fairness, the hon. Gentleman was obviously speaking to farmers in his constituency on Sunday. Did I hear that there is a protest going on in his constituency at the moment? In any event, I actually made the announcement on national television on Sunday; perhaps he was not watching. Farmers at home will be wondering what on earth we are arguing over.

One word that the right hon. Lady has not mentioned is Brexit—the great Tory disaster of the last Parliament. How much does she estimate that Brexit cost farmers and the rural community?

The hon. Gentleman and I, unusually, can join forces on this matter. While I am going to resist the temptation to revisit Brexit, what I will do is point him to paragraph 4.11 of the CAAV report—

My apologies, Mr Speaker. I am reminded of paragraph 4.11 of the CAAV report, which sets out the peculiar legal problems posed by the family farm tax in the context of Scottish farming tenants. It is incredibly complicated, but that is a real concern, and I trust that the SNP will be exploring it alongside Conservative Members of Parliament.

In conclusion, before ambitious Back Benchers, or, indeed, the Exchequer Secretary, get to their feet and accuse these farmers, and us, of scaremongering—something they have been happy to do in the past—they should think on, discover some humility and compassion, and ask why tens of thousands of decent, hard-working and sensible people across the United Kingdom know that the Chancellor has got it so wrong. Polling by the Country Land and Business Association today shows what the public think: they do not think farmers should be whacked with the family farm tax. They think that Labour has broken its promise to end countryside decline; they think the Government should be cutting taxes on rural businesses; and 70% are not confident that the Labour Government can deliver growth to rural communities.

I say to every hon. Member on the Government Benches: do the right thing and stand up for our farmers, who are the best in the world and whose produce is renowned globally. They feed us, and now they need us. Labour MPs need to join us and axe the family farm tax.

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“thanks farmers for their immense contribution to the UK economy and the nation’s food security; welcomes the Government’s commitment of £5 billion to the farming budget over the next two years, the biggest budget for sustainable food production and nature recovery in UK history; acknowledges that the Government is having to make difficult decisions to protect farms and farmers in the context of the £22 billion fiscal blackhole left by the previous Government; recognises that the Government is seeking to target Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief to make them fairer whilst also fixing the public services that everyone relies on; and notes that under the changes announced in the Budget around three quarters of claims for Agricultural Property Relief, including those that also claim Business Property Relief, are expected to not pay more Inheritance Tax.”

I welcome the chance to open the debate on behalf of the Government. The Government’s commitment to farmers is steadfast. As our amendment makes clear, farmers make an immense contribution to the UK economy and to the nation’s food security. We recognise and respect the crucial contribution that farmers make to our country’s way of life.

We must also recognise, however, the state of our public services and the mess in which we found the public finances when we came into power. There was no way we could have left things as they were. Unlike the Conservatives, there was never any question of Labour ignoring the £22 billion black hole that we uncovered in the public finances. We had to bring the previous Administration’s fiscal irresponsibility to an end. We had to ensure that our country lives within its means. We had to get public services back on their feet while meeting our tough new fiscal rules, which end borrowing for day-to-day spending. That is what we, as a responsible Government, had to do.

That is why, at the autumn Budget, the Chancellor set out a number of difficult but necessary decisions on tax, welfare and spending. These decisions were to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and rebuild our public services. One of the decisions we took was to reform agricultural and business property relief. We chose to do so in a way that maintains significant tax relief for family farms, while fixing the public finances as fairly as possible.

The hon. Gentleman will want to explain this, Mr Speaker. The Government have argued that only 27% of farms will be affected by this measure, while the National Farmers Union says it is 75%. Will he at least give us an indication from the Dispatch Box, perhaps supported by a note in the Library of the House, showing the modelling that contradicts the NFU’s figures?

I point the right hon. Gentleman to the letter the Chancellor recently sent to the Treasury Committee, which sets out some of these figures in detail. Some of the confusion that he and other hon. Members have encountered might come from the fact that there are different sets of data. The set of data he may be referring to relates to the total value of farms across the country, but if we are thinking about inheritance tax claims, it is right to look at His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs claims data on inheritance tax. Looking simply at the value of a farm does not tell us what the inheritance tax liability for that farm may be, given that we would have to look at the ownership structure—at who owns what—and at any liabilities, and so on. That might be where some of the right hon. Gentleman’s confusion is coming from.

At Treasury questions yesterday, I raised with the hon. Gentleman the case of Upper Peppershill farm in Long Crendon, a small 380-acre arable farm in my constituency, which the shadow Secretary of State and the Leader of the Opposition visited a few weeks ago. The family have calculated that if they borrow the money to pay this new tax, it will take them 40 years to pay it back. What does the Minister say to the Seed family in Long Crendon about the tax bill they face?

It is not appropriate for me, as a Minister, to give specific tax advice to one family, but I will talk about the general principles behind our reform. In fact, I was about to begin setting out some of the detail of our policy.

On the general principle, is the Minister seriously saying that all the tax advisers advising all the farmers across the country and all the land valuers, who are qualified in a way that he is not, are wrong, and that he is right?

What I am explaining is that the data for claims through HMRC, which shows the claims made under agricultural property relief and business property relief, is the correct set of data to work out future liabilities on that basis. That is what the projections that we have put out are based on. That is set out in the Chancellor’s letter to the Treasury Committee that I mentioned. I urge the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to review that letter to understand the data I am talking about in more detail.

I would like to make a bit of progress to explain some of the detail behind our policy, which may answer some of the questions that hon. Members are jumping to their feet to ask.

We know that inheritance tax is always an emotive issue, and understandably so. It is a natural desire for people to want to pass on their assets to the people they love when they pass away.

The standard single rate of inheritance tax has been 40% since 1988, and assets have generally long been entitled to nil-rate bands, reliefs and exemptions. A form of relief for agricultural property was introduced on estate duty in the Finance Act 1948, meaning that this duty was charged at 55% of the rate that would normally have applied. A new agricultural property relief and a business property relief were created in the mid-1970s with the introduction of the capital transfer tax. The rate of relief increased over time to a maximum of 50% relief; that maximum rate was then increased to 100% in 1992. This means that agricultural landowners and farmers did not receive 100% relief for almost all of the 20th century, and yet farms passed down between the generations.

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. That was why the law was changed to introduce 100% relief. Family farms were not being passed down because the value of land was increasing. Will he consider that before bringing in these changes?

To address the right hon. Gentleman’s point, we recognise that agricultural and business property relief play an important role in supporting family farms, but the full unlimited exemption from inheritance tax has simply become unsustainable. The four most recent years-worth of data make clear why. The data shows that a very small number of agricultural property relief claimants, including those who claim business property relief too, benefited from a very significant amount of relief. In total, 47% of the Exchequer cost of the relief went to the top 7% of claims. To be clear what that means, I will put it another way. For every 14 or so estates, the top one among them claimed half the total relief.

Let me tell the Minister what concerns me most. There has not been an impact assessment, but if the major driver for the Government, whether we accept it or not, was to raise some money from this source, why were other more effective mechanisms not used, such as business roll-over relief, where a business could be sold in another context and rolled over into buying the land, deferring capital gains tax? If that mechanism had been used, the money would have been taken from much wealthier people who were not actually producing food in the first place. Now, we are capturing a massive proportion of small family farms completely unnecessarily, because due consideration of better alternatives was not done by the Minister.

I reassure the right hon. Gentleman, for whom I have a lot of respect personally, that we carefully considered how to calibrate the policy to ensure that significant relief from inheritance tax is still available to family farms, while at the same time fixing the public finances in as fair a way as possible.

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. He has just referred to his analysis of four years of data which led him and the Government to this position. That is an incredible thing to ask the House to believe, because just a few months ago his right hon. Friends the now Prime Minister and Secretary of State were specifically ruling out these policies to audiences of farmers and landowners. If the data of four years’ standing told him that this was the right policy, why were those now Ministers economical with the actualité when they spoke to the farmers themselves?

The data we did not have before the general election was the £22 billion black hole that the hon. Gentleman’s party left in the public finances. He knows that, because it is acknowledged by the Office for Budget Responsibility that the full information was not shared with it. It has said that its forecast would have been “materially different” had it known that that was the case. We have had to take a number of difficult decisions.

This talk of data reminds me that over 12,000 farmers and agribusinesses have gone out of business since 2010. Will the Minister reassure me about what we are doing to improve profitability in British farming?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the decimation of businesses during the Conservatives’ time in office. Businesses across the economy need stability, public finances on a firm footing and investment in our public services. That is what businesses across the country need to invest for the future and grow.

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is a Treasury Minister. May I suggest that some of the disparity between the Treasury figures and those of other reputable bodies representing agricultural interests is because of land values? Average values for ordinary land in the Cotswolds are now £15,000 an acre. Will he accede to the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), a former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, and publish an up-to-date impact assessment on how many farms this tax will affect?

A lot of data has already been published. I mentioned the Chancellor’s letter to the Treasury Committee, and further details on the impact will be published alongside the draft legislation in the normal way. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads the letter to the Select Committee. As he and the his right hon. Friend will know, the impacts are typically published at the time of draft legislation. That is the normal process. Indeed, it was the norm under the previous Government.

Some of the correspondence I have received on this issue talks about the fact that the measures inflate land value. Does my hon. Friend agree with that assessment, and what will the changes do to help farmers across the country in that respect?

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that some of the features of the current inheritance tax relief system mean that it is an attractive vehicle for tax planning to reduce inheritance tax liability. People who have wealth who have never been farmers and do not intend to become farmers have been using it as a way to avoid inheritance tax. In fact, reducing that should take some of the pressure out of agricultural land values and, I would hope, help to make a more sustainable farming sector in the future.

It is important to get the facts right and to get the right number of farms in frame. The Minister must know that the CAAV has said that the Government estimate is down by a factor of five. According to its impartial independent review, 75,000 farms will be in frame for this tax, not the figure the Minister is relying on.

My response to the right hon. Gentleman is the same as that to the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). I believe he is looking at the data for the total value of farms, rather than for inheritance tax claims. The two are different things. For instance, a farm worth £5 million owned in equal shares by five individuals would have no inheritance tax liability because of the way claims work. That is where I think some of the confusion has come from. There is different data around the value of farms and around the value of inheritance tax claims. For the purpose of today’s debate, it is the inheritance tax claims that are the right data to focus on.

On the point about facts, I was fascinated by the end of the shadow Secretary of State’s contribution. She opined on whether Labour was sticking to its promise to end the decline in the countryside. I wonder who was in government for the last 14 years while the countryside was declining. The Conservative Government sold out British farmers through trade deals and 12,000 farming businesses went out of business. Does my hon. Friend agree?

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. He points out a repeated pattern of the Opposition: their total refusal to take any responsibility for the damage they caused over the past 14 years. They may wish it never happened; the British people disagree.

I am going to make some progress.

I just set out some statistics that show how this tax relief is very concentrated in a small number of claims. In the context of the dire fiscal situation we inherited and the critical need to fix the public finances and get public services back on their feet, it cannot be right to maintain such a significant level of relief for a very small number of claimants. That is why, from 6 April 2026, the full 100% relief from inheritance tax will be restricted to the first £1 million of combined agricultural and business property. Above that amount, there will be an unlimited 50% relief, so inheritance tax will be paid at a reduced effective rate of up to 20%, rather than the standard 40%.

The new system, it should be noted, remains more generous than in the past. As I mentioned, the rate of relief prior to 1992 was a maximum of 50% on all agricultural and business assets, including the first £1 million. The reliefs we are providing will be on top of all the other exemptions and nil-rate bands that people can access for inheritance tax. Taken in combination, this means that a couple with farmland will typically be able to pass on up to £3 million-worth of assets to their descendants without paying any inheritance tax.

I thank the Minister for giving way. The CAAV calls the £3 million figure “unrealistic” and “unreasonable”. Does he not agree?