Finance (No. 2) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)]

I am pleased to speak in this debate on the Finance (No. 2) Bill. I have now spoken in most of the Finance Bill debates since I was first elected to represent the people of Ceredigion in 2017, and subsequently, since last year, I now also represent the good people of Preseli, in north Pembrokeshire. In advance of all Finance Bill debates I make the effort to consult widely with my communities, in particular with the small businesses that form such an important part of the economy in my constituency. In all the years that I have served as a Member of Parliament, never has the sense of fear, the lack of confidence and the uncertainty been so palpable when I have met businesses in my constituency.

If I reflect briefly on the structure of the economy of the constituency, it is perhaps no surprise that they should be so worried about the measures in this Budget. As of March this year, there were some 5,500 businesses registered in Ceredigion Preseli—that number may well be slightly lower by next March—and 81% of them are classified as small businesses, with fewer than 50 employees, which makes Ceredigion Preseli the small business capital of Wales. It is a rural and coastal constituency, so the industries of agriculture and hospitality are key pillars of our economy. Indeed, 35% of all businesses are classified as being in the agricultural, forestry or fishing sector.

Much has already been said in the debate about the changes to the agricultural property relief and the business property relief, and the concerns that these changes have caused for small businesses and small family farms across the United Kingdom. We have heard other Members, particularly the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), eloquently speak on this matter. As he mentioned, we have already seen how these proposals have changed the way in which our small businesses, particularly farm businesses, operate. Some 55% of small businesses and 49% of farm businesses have already cancelled proposed investment projects in anticipation of the changes. Family Business UK estimates that in my constituency these changes alone will lead to the loss of some 250 jobs and deliver a £13 million hit to my constituency’s gross value added.

There is a real danger with these changes that the Government will deliver incredibly long-lasting harm to small businesses across the country, especially in rural areas. It is particularly disappointing that the Government have refused to pause, at least, these changes so that they can properly understand the impact that they will have on rural areas. Many figures and statistics have been bandied about in the many debates that we have had in the past months about the prevailing facts of these changes, but the Government have not undertaken a full impact assessment, as follows most policy decisions that they take.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am intervening on the hon. Gentleman because we both represent rural constituencies—he in Wales and me in Lincolnshire. Our constituencies are very different in their rural aspect, but both are affected equally badly by the family farm tax. Many of my farms may be larger than his, but their income is still quite marginal. So many of us representing rural areas cannot understand why the Government have not been prepared to compromise, listen to the NFU and, if necessary, take more resources from the big estates but preserve our family farms.

[Ben Lake]

I very much agree with the right hon. Member. That is a point of real bemusement and confusion for many of my constituents.

The Government have not looked for or sought compromise or engaged with the alternative proposals presented by the NFU and the Farmers Union of Wales. Some consensus is to be found, if only the Government would budge and were willing to compromise ever so slightly, so that they can achieve the objectives they so eloquently pointed out are the intention of the policy without sacrificing hundreds if not thousands of family farms and businesses across rural Britain, particularly in my constituency.

That probably underlines a growing sense that I have had. Although my constituency is only 170-odd miles from Westminster and Whitehall, where many of these decisions are dreamt up and subsequently implemented on us, we may as well live on the moon, such is the disconnect between the policies that are sometimes made here and the impact that they have on the ground. There is a lack of effort to try to understand why so many businesses and people in my communities are so fearful about the impact that these proposals will have on their lives.

Let me add that some 15% of all jobs in my constituency are in hospitality. There was a missed opportunity in this Budget for the Government to look again at the VAT for hospitality. That would have done a world of good and given much-needed confidence to an industry and sector that are suffering dreadfully at the moment with the cumulative impact of different price increases as well as new taxes. A VAT cut on hospitality would have been very much welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Edward Leigh]

My hon. Friend was brought up in a notable local farming family in my constituency, and the reason why the House is listening to him is that he has been bred into farming and knows about farming. Would he like to say what, from his own family’s experience, this means for farmers in Lincolnshire? Some people say that Lincolnshire is full of large estates and all the rest of it. No, it is full of working farms, and he can speak with authority on this subject.

[Robbie Moore]

The point to make quite clearly is that every single farming business will, in one way or another, be impacted by the £1 million threshold kicking in. Why? Because for an arable farm in Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire or wherever it is, the price of feed wheat is still at about the same price it was 20 years ago, but the costs of all the inputs have been rising. Not only are such businesses subject to cash-flow challenges as a result of this Government removing the delinked payments —dramatically dropping them to £600—as well as removing the sustainable farming incentive and bringing in the fertiliser tax or the double cab pick-up tax, but they will be impacted by the changes to inheritance tax. That impact will be felt by hill farmers in Keighley and Ilkley; arable farmers in Lincolnshire or, dare I say it, down in Cornwall; and farmers wherever there are, even those subject to high land values in Northern Ireland. This Government must listen to our farming community right now, because whether farmers come down today or tomorrow to make noise with their tractors outside, I hope they continue coming to make sure that this Government listen.

It is not just our farming community that is impacted by the IHT changes. This has an impact on our family businesses, our hospitality businesses, our breweries and our manufacturing and engineering businesses. That is why I simply cannot understand why we have not heard from Back-Bench Labour MPs representing urban constituencies, who may be representing a manufacturing or engineering business, a hospitality business or a hotelier. Why on earth have those with such family businesses in their constituencies not been loud and proud in making noises to the Chancellor about the negative impacts these IHT changes will have on our many family businesses?

OBR: Resignation of Chair

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

The Chancellor set out at the Budget how important it is to increase our headroom. We have increased it to £21.7 billion, which is critical to reducing the cost of borrowing and protecting us against future shocks. The Chancellor also announced that the OBR’s spring forecast will not include an assessment of the Government’s performance against the fiscal rules, and the Government will not respond to it with fiscal policy; but the OBR will produce a forecast in spring, as expected.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

For what it is worth, I think the OBR has become too powerful. We live in a parliamentary democracy, not a quangocracy, and the Chancellor alone should be responsible. Does the Chief Secretary agree that in future all communications between the Chancellor and the OBR should be in deep private? That is the only way the system will work. Never again do we want selective leaks. Can he promise that that will not happen in the next Budget?

[James Murray]

The right hon. Gentleman and I disagree on the role of the OBR. As a Government, we are committed to the OBR’s independence and its vital role as a core part of our political framework. As I mentioned, one of our first acts in this Parliament was to introduce the fiscal lock to ensure that the OBR can never again be sidelined as it was by the previous Government. Regarding the private space between the OBR and the Treasury, the publication of the OBR’s letter, which as I mentioned was agreed to by the Chancellor, was due to the unique nature of this Budget in the context of the OBR’s productivity review. We acknowledged that that would not become a usual practice, due to the importance of preserving a private space for conversations.

Taxes

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

It was the Korean war—my right hon. Friend is absolutely right.

It is the Chancellor’s choices that have led to this situation. She was the person who chose to put up taxes on jobs, which has led to growth being anaemic. We know that taxes such as national insurance feed through to lower investment, higher inflation, higher unemployment and lower real wages. We know that the Government talked down the economy with the absurd and fictitious £22 billion black hole. In a sweet irony, when they asked the OBR to come in and opine on that number, it said that it would not legitimise it.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real downfall of the Government dates from when they did not face down their own Back Benchers and deal with the rocketing benefits bill? Frankly, the country is going broke and the Government must have the courage to deal with millions of people who are not contributing to society.

[Sir Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. I shall come to those matters shortly, because there are alternatives to what the Government have decided to do.

It was this Government who went on a reckless borrowing spree. This year, we have borrowed £100 billion—the highest borrowing in our history, excluding the pandemic. Why has that happened? Because the Chancellor has fiddled the fiscal rules. She changed the debt definition from public sector net debt, as it was under us, to public sector net financial liabilities, which allows far more borrowing. In fact, under the original definition that we had—which she, incidentally, said she would not change—she would have been underwater in just about every year of the forecast on the debt target. That recklessness has led to the Labour party having plans to borrow half a trillion pounds more over the period of this Parliament than we had in our plans that it inherited.

Inheritance Tax: Family-owned Businesses

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Susan Murray]

I completely agree: it appears that there are many factors the Government have not taken into account.

The situation was brought home to me by a local company in my constituency: Archibald Young Ltd Founders and Engineers, a family-run foundry that has been operating in Kirkintilloch since 1959—not quite as long as the business mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackley and Middleton South (Graham Stringer). I thank Ian Young for sharing his company’s position and highlighting the vital role that it plays in defence by producing high-precision critical components. Since it was established, the company has grown steadily over three generations. At one time, Scotland had over 260 foundries; it now has 12, of which 11 are family-owned, and all are third generation.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent speech. Will she make the point that we do not really understand where the Government are coming from? I understand why they want to claw back money from big estates, or from people who buy farms just to avoid inheritance tax—not Jeremy Clarkson of course; he is a fantastic chap—but I cannot understand why they are focusing on family farms. Will the hon. Lady make the point that the National Farmers Union has offered various compromises, and the Minister should meet the NFU in a positive way to ensure that we keep our family farms run by families?

[Susan Murray]

I agree; it is important we understand that these businesses and family farms exist in their own right and are not simply personal property, even though they are family owned.

Today, under Andrew Young, Young’s foundry continues to provide skilled and specialist manufacturing from its bases in Kirkintilloch, Motherwell and the north of England. Like so many of the family-run firms we are here to talk about, its success has been built over decades of hard work and reinvestment in its business and workforce, yet recent Government policies are putting that at risk.

Clearly, family-owned businesses can cope with challenges in the economic and business environment, which they have navigated over generations, but when Government policies are hostile to their success and survival, their ability to create jobs and grow the economy is eroded and their future is uncertain. Whether it is rising energy and employment costs, burdensome business rates or disproportionate regulatory hurdles, these enterprises face challenges that their multinational competitors are often better equipped to absorb, or that they do not face at all.

The reforms to business property relief and agricultural relief announced in the 2024 autumn Budget have dealt family businesses a blow that risks undermining the very principle of intergenerational succession that has been at the heart of their success. They must retain profits to reinvest in business assets, to enhance business competitiveness and invest in product development.

Prior to the reforms, the shares held in private family-owned businesses could be passed on upon death to the next family generation, free of inheritance tax. This was enabled by the shares qualifying for 100% business property relief. The 2024 Budget introduced a new £1 million relief cap beyond which inheritance tax is due, with business property relief of 50%, resulting in an inheritance tax charge of 20% being applied to such transfers upon death. This sudden change means that family financial planning opportunities are much more limited. Under the new rules any lifetime transfer of business property relief or agricultural property relief assets made on or after 30 October 2024 will be subject to the new relief limits if the donor dies on or after 6 April 2026.

GAP Holdings Ltd is another family-owned business based in my constituency. I thank Mark Anderson of GAP for allowing me to share his company’s position in this debate. He has also met the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and colleagues. Founded in 1969, GAP’s tool-hire business has grown dramatically. By reinvesting in its assets over the past 10 years, it has tripled its turnover and now employs over 2,000 people across the UK. GAP’s annual profit to March was £44 million, and its earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation were £132 million. For GAP, the potential inheritance tax charge arising upon the death of the second generation would amount to tens of millions of pounds. The proposed £1 million relief cap would make no meaningful difference to the size of the problem. Three months ago, GAP exceeded the £1 million mark in its total donations to charitable causes. That is the kind of benefit that these businesses bring to the community.

The inheritance tax changes would require the independent valuation of companies. Will the Minister clarify whether there is a consistent and defined methodology for that activity? When a family business owner dies and leaves shares to the next generation, there is no cash available to pay inheritance tax liability and no windfall to successors. In practical terms, it is business as usual, and the business continues to use its assets to trade and contribute economically to the local community. It is not the same as selling a business; however, it may force the company to be sold completely to pay the liability.

Will the Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s intention that a family-owned business that has been passed down through the generations is forced to be sold as a result of the change, or forced into failure by having to take on unsustainable levels of debt?

Defence Sector Financing

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Wednesday 7th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I will call Luke Charters to move the motion. I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered barriers to defence sector financing.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for responding today. Every era has ideas that capture imaginations, but only some give birth to institutions that genuinely have the chance to reshape history. The World Bank kick-started post-war reconstruction, and in 1949 NATO was founded, representing a giant, global step forward towards peace and security—frankly, it is hard to imagine a world without it. The lesson here is clear: when institutions are bold and are built for the long term, they secure the peace that prosperity depends on.

Today I want to present another bold idea about an institution that would strengthen and deepen our alliances for generations. What makes this opportunity even more unique is that one of the architects of the concept will hopefully be joining us later. I speak, of course, of the urgent need for a multilateral defence development bank. In my view, that is the single most transformative lever the Government could pull to fortify our collective security.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Reynolds]

We have been clear that there is no contradiction between ESG considerations and investment in defence, and that investing in our defence industry is a way to protect our democracy and borders, and to work in solidarity with our European neighbours. I will write to the hon. Gentleman about the specifics, but I know that various accusations have been levelled at some of the companies he mentions and others. We need to be very careful about that.

I heard what the hon. Member for Strangford said about our own pension funds. There is huge potential in our pensions industry. We should ensure that that industry is in a position to leverage the great returns that can come from defence companies, but there is a lot of muddying the waters around certain firms and what they are doing. I do not want to name particular companies, but I am happy to discuss it with the hon. Gentleman in detail after the debate. Aspersions have been cast against certain companies managing pension funds that are not absolutely accurate when it comes to ESG. A lot of things are piled under the ESG banner. We are very keen that opaque ESG ratings should not impede the attractiveness of the defence sector.

I am running out of time. I believe that the Member who moved the motion replies?

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

No.

[Emma Reynolds]

I have a bit more time then.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Outer talked about access to finance for defence companies with regard to bank accounts. That is a commercial decision. He also mentioned access to credit, loans and cash flow, where we know defence SMEs often face challenges. We want to work across the Government, with SMEs in the defence sector and with the main players in financial services to ensure that we bring down some of the barriers to finance. My hon. Friend suggested a Government-backed growth guarantee scheme, and made a strong, thoughtful and compelling case for that. With other interventions, that is being considered as part of the defence industrial strategy.

I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and other Members with a keen interest in this vital sector. We want to see a thriving UK defence sector, with both large defence firms and SMEs in the supply chain, that provides security for the United Kingdom and helps to deliver the economic growth that the country needs to raise living standards across the country.

Question put and agreed to.

National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Davies]

It is rare that questions come with a musical accompaniment, but the right hon. Gentleman’s mobile ringtone made for a great effect. None the less, his point is the right one, which is that, whether it was intended or not, the rationale for the Bill is to “protect”—in the Government’s words—public services. I could say “bolster” public services if I were being generous. The fact is that the Government are taxing public services on which we all rely and he is absolutely right to emphasise that.

Lords amendments 1B and 5B seek to provide the power to exempt from both prongs of attack of the Chancellor’s jobs tax: care providers, NHS GP practices, NHS-commissioned dentists, NHS-commissioned pharmacists, and charitable providers of health and social care, such as hospices. And it is hospices specifically that I want to speak more about today.

Hospices are there at what, for many, will be the hardest moments of their lives. They provide vital physical and emotional support to individuals who are coming towards the final chapter of their lives and for their loved ones. In short, hospices are there to look after us at our most difficult time. So, whether through funding, charitable donations or legislation, they deserve our utmost support to continue in this task.

However, as I set out in Committee, this disastrous jobs tax will cost hospices up to £30 million next year alone. Hospice UK has repeatedly warned this Government that the Bill risks a reduction in hospice services, which will lead only to even greater pressure on NHS palliative care services.

Of the more than 200 hospices across our country, around 40 provide care for children. These are children who are living with terminal illness, many of whom have an all-too-limited time left in this world. The organisation Together for Short Lives estimates that the Labour Government’s decision to raise national insurance will add almost £5 million to the annual cost of providing care for seriously ill children and their families. Let us be clear: this will mean that every children’s hospice in England alone will need to spend an average of £140,000 more just to maintain services for the children in their care, after paying the additional tax that this Bill will impose. The Government cannot seriously be demanding that staff and volunteers at charitable children’s hospices—the very people who already give their heart and soul to look after sick and dying children—fundraise their share of £5 million next year alone just to keep their lights on and their doors open.

At Treasury questions on 21 January, the Chancellor stated, in response to an excellent question from my Lincolnshire colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), that the settlement for hospices announced by the Health and Social Care Secretary just before Christmas includes money to specifically “compensate” hospices for the national insurance increase. That is not correct, and I am pleased that at least this Minister has tried to acknowledge that point.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

When I visited staff at the much-loved St Barnabas hospice in Lincoln, which provides excellent palliative care, they told me that they are losing £300,000 a year. In the debates on assisted dying, we all agree that we want more palliative care. I just cannot understand the logic of what the Government are doing. I make one last appeal to them not to load this extra cost on to hospices.

[Gareth Davies]

My right hon. Friend has raised that matter at every single opportunity that he has been afforded, and he is right to stand up not just for St Barnabas, but for all hospices. However, I have to say that St Barnabas holds a particular place in the hearts of people in Lincolnshire. I know, as a Lincolnshire Member of Parliament, that it has been around for 40 years, employs 300 staff and treats more than 12,000 people across our county every single year. The fact that it is going to be hit with a cost worth hundreds of thousands of pounds for no good reason is unacceptable. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Father of the House for raising that point so consistently. I hope that the Government will listen to him.

The settlement announced does not compensate St Barnabas, or any hospice, for the damage that the Government are doing, not least because we know that much of this money cannot be spent on facing down the additional running costs that this tax hike will bring. There is £100 million of capital funding, which has been set aside for buildings and equipment. Although that funding is welcome, it will not fill the national insurance blackhole that the Chancellor has created for the hospice sector, and she should not suggest otherwise. Today the Government have a chance to exempt hospices and other key areas of our health and social care sector from this tax hike, by accepting Lords amendments 1B and 5B.

In addition, Lords amendment 8B seeks to provide the power to exempt the smallest businesses—those with fewer than 25 full-time employees—from the proposed cut to the threshold at which an employer is required to pay secondary class 1 national insurance. The Chancellor has spoken a lot about growth, but growth has been consistently downgraded since she took office. Something that we, as Conservatives, know, and that she, as a socialist, does not know, is that that is because economic growth cannot come from the Floor of the House of Commons; it comes from the factory floors and bustling high street shop floors in each of our constituencies. It comes not from state-created quangos such as GB Energy, but from individuals who had an idea, stuck it out, made it work and saw it through. It comes from people in this country who, by seeking a better life through enterprise, create the jobs and services that make our country strong.

Those small businesses are being hammered, but not just by the national insurance hike. In less than a year they have already seen: business rates relief cut from 75% to 40%; aspiration penalised with changes to business property relief; and crippling new red tape through the Employment Rights Bill, adding a staggering £5 billion in additional costs. This is a potent and damaging combination of costs that many fear will mark the end. Lords amendment 8B gives the Government another chance today to change their approach, to throw our smallest businesses a lifeline—a chance of survival.

Finally, while our smallest businesses require specific attention, I made it clear last week that, sadly, this Bill does not discriminate. It will hit business groups of all types, across all sectors, in all parts of our country—from charities to cafés, from pharmacies to children’s nurseries and special educational needs and disabilities transport. We must understand the impact the Bill will have. That is why Lords amendment 21B requires the Chancellor to carry out a review of the impact of the Bill on a range of sectors of our economy within six months of its passing into law. I urge Members to support the amendment.

Tomorrow the Chancellor will come to this House to launch her latest attempt to reverse as much as possible of the damage of her Hallowe’en Budget of horrors. Despite the hopes and dreams of business owners across the country, we can be sure that her emergency Budget will not include scrapping this awful Bill. It is incumbent on all of us in this place to work to protect and support the most vulnerable in our society, and to take decisions that drive growth, backing the people out there who make it happen. They are the people who will be hit hardest by the Bill. The Government must change course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Look, enough is enough. I have to get Members in from both sides. I am sorry that the Front Bench does not want to get these Members in, but I am determined to. These are called topical questions, which means I want quick questions and certainly short answers. I call the Father of the House, Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

T5. I hope that I will not damage the Chancellor if I commend the fiscally conservative way in which she is increasing defence spending. Given that if every European country matched our 2.5% commitment, we could release over £150 billion of defence spending, does she agree that we can crack this, because war and peace are always won, ultimately, by the size the economy?

[Rachel Reeves]

I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman. This is why I met my fellow European Finance Ministers in Cape Town at the G20 last week. All of Europe needs to step up. The British Government are doing so and we need to see that from other countries, too.

Inheritance Tax Relief: Farms

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough) to move the motion, I should inform Members that during today’s debate the parliamentary digital communications team will be conducting secondary filming for its series on procedural explainers.

Forty-nine colleagues have asked to speak in the debate, so if everyone is to get in, I have to impose from the beginning a three-minute limit on everybody taking part after the opener, apart from the winding-up speeches. Every time Members intervene, they will ensure that one of their colleagues will not get in at the end. If the hon. Member for South Norfolk, in his opening speech, takes too many interventions, or his speech goes on too long, he will prevent others from taking part. Let us all bear that in mind—short speeches of no more than three minutes, please.

[Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700138 relating to Inheritance Tax relief for working farms.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. To date, the petition in question has received just shy of 150,000 signatures, which is a mark of the strength of feeling that exists about the proposed policy change. The petitioners argue that

“changing inheritance tax relief for agricultural land will devastate farms nationwide, forcing families to sell land and assets just to stay on their property.”

I put on the record my thanks to the diligent staff of the Petitions Committee who have secured for me, as a representative of the petitioners, meetings with the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association, the Tax Policy Associates, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Rural Accountancy Group. As the Member of Parliament for the rural constituency of South Norfolk, which is formed of a patchwork quilt of farms, I am honoured to lead this debate and, in doing so, to give a voice to the farmers in my constituency who have contacted me to share their thoughts about the planned changes to inheritance tax on agricultural businesses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Goldsborough]

rose—

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Member has spoken for 15 minutes, so could he bring his remarks to a close to allow others to speak?

[Ben Goldsborough]

To reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I said at the start of my speech that the problem is that the issue has been turned into a political football, and that undermines our ability to speak in clear-minded ways about options and opportunities. It is really sad that across from me is a shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who has worked very hard on this issue, and with whom I have worked cross-party, but the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), does not want to work in a manner that could get the best outcome for our farmers.

[David Davis]

On a point of order, Sir Edward. Could you give us guidance? I thought—perhaps wrongly, because of my inexperience—that somebody representing petitioners in the Chamber had to make the argument for them and believe in what they are asking for. We have had absolutely the opposite today; the petitioners have had no service in this debate up until now.

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

That is a matter for debate, but I am sure that plenty of Members present will give the argument for the petitioners, so I would not worry much about it.

[Ben Goldsborough]

There is one other option that it is important to consider before I finish. Mr Neidle, a tax specialist, recently said that the Government should consider a clawback system, potentially raising the threshold and looking at repayment.

My job today has been to represent the views of the 150,000 people who signed the petition and, by pulling together the various options that people would like to see, I believe I have done so. I thank friends from all political parties around the Chamber for engaging and showing interest in this issue. It is important that we all stand up for our communities, and I thank everyone for doing that. I thank the Minister for listening to my contribution and hope he takes it in the spirit of friendship with which it was meant. I hope I have set out the options on the table in respect of which those outside the Chamber would like to hear a response from the Government about what action will be taken.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Sir Edward Leigh (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to speak.

Oral Answers to Questions

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Murray]

As my hon. Friend set out, decisions on eligibility for covid-19 financial support were taken by the previous Government. The current Government have no plans to assess the financial compensation scheme, but the covid-19 inquiry has recently launched its module to investigate the economic response to the pandemic. The Government are committed to learning from its findings.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

When I visited St Barnabas hospice in Lincoln recently, the chief executive told me that it was having to pay £350,000 extra every year to cover the national insurance increase. I do not expect an answer now, but as we all agree that palliative care is so important and we want to encourage it, and the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill started its Committee stage today, will the Government keep that increase for hospices under review?

[Rachel Reeves]

The Health Secretary set out the settlement for hospices just before Christmas to ensure that they have the money they need, including to compensate for the national insurance increase, but I am happy to arrange a meeting for the right hon. Gentleman with the relevant Health Minister.

Public Finances: Borrowing Costs

Edward Leigh Excerpts

Thursday 9th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On 6 November, the Chancellor said:

“We have now set the envelope for spending for this Parliament, and we are not going to be coming back with more tax increases or, indeed, with more borrowing.”

I am sure, because the Chancellor is an honourable lady, that she will not be opening that envelope, putting her sticky fingers inside and coming out with more borrowing or tax increases. Will the Minister give an absolute assurance of no more tax increases or borrowing?

[Darren Jones]

I can absolutely assure the Father of the House that we are working through this spending review on the basis of the envelope set at the Budget. Public services will have to operate within the means that we are providing to them. The OBR forecast will come in March, which will give us the latest set of information, and we will work to that with Departments. This is why we have set up organisations such as the Office for Value for Money, why we have set tough productivity and efficiency targets for Departments and why we are investing in, for example, technology to improve the productivity of the public services we provide. Public services must live within their means, as set out in the Budget, and that is an absolute guarantee from this Government.