Mountain Rescue
Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
My hon. Friend will know that down in leafy Oxfordshire, we have far fewer mountains in our proximity than she does, but we do have rolling countryside and hazardous waterways. Lowland rescue plays a really important role as the counterpart to mountain rescue. It is also a charitable, volunteer-led organisation. Will she join me in praising its work to find vulnerable people and make sure they come home safely?
Lisa Smart
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving a shout-out to those involved in lowland rescue. I know there is a whole search and rescue community, including those who look at caves and other environments, and I am glad that he gave me the opportunity to thank all those involved in the great work of lowland rescue.
As climate change leads to more extreme weather events, rescue teams are increasingly a de facto fourth emergency service. The 24% rise in call-outs over five years reflects the growing popularity of outdoor activities. That is to be welcomed, but it puts real pressure on rescue teams, and social media is a significant driver. The chief executive officer of Mountain Rescue England and Wales, Mike Park, has spoken of a shift in the types of visitors to upland areas, as people are drawn to locations by striking footage online without always understanding the conditions or the hazards involved. Chief superintendent of North Wales Police Owain Llewellyn described an “almost unprecedented” rise in visitors to the Eryri national park as a direct result of social media posts and a corresponding increase in call-outs.
Phil Brickell
The hon. Member makes an excellent point about mental health support for volunteers, and I will come to that shortly.
Volunteers are giving up their time to keep others safe. Our mountain rescue teams respond to thousands of incidents every year, from missing persons to injured walkers, and support the response to floods and major incidents. As has been recognised, they are largely—almost exclusively—funded by donations. The same people who are rescuing others are out raising the very money they need to fund their vehicles and equipment and to support their training. That places a heavy burden on those volunteers and their communities.
That is why I was delighted back in the autumn when the Chancellor confirmed she had heeded my calls and those of others here today to exempt mountain rescue vehicles from vehicle excise duty. That practical step will save each team thousands of pounds, show some recognition of the roles that teams play and allow them to rightly focus their fundraising efforts—in Bolton’s case, on the £60,000 a year it costs to maintain their vehicles and kit.
I know from speaking to the brilliant Bolton Mountain Rescue Team, which is based out of an old stable block at Ladybridge Hall in Heaton, that that exemption will make a significant difference. Since its formation in 1968, Bolton mountain rescue has covered a wide and varied terrain: almost 310 square miles stretching from Darwen to Manchester airport and from Wigan to Manchester. Its work is not limited to remote moorland: the team is regularly called out to search for missing people, support police operations, respond to incidents in urban fringe areas and assist during severe weather events. Indeed, over the Easter weekend, it was on site at the annual Rivington Pike race, one of the most historic fell races in the country, which saw more than 350 runners from across the north-west and beyond participate in a sprint to the pike and then back down to the finish line on Lever Park Avenue in Horwich.
Mountain rescue teams are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Members hold down full-time jobs and have families and other commitments, and they drop everything when that call comes in. I hope colleagues will join me in recognising the brilliant and selfless work they undertake. Mountain rescue teams such as mine in Bolton have our back, so it is only right that we should have theirs.
I would therefore like to gently press the Minister on four areas where she might work with colleagues across Government on additional support for mountain rescue teams. First, although I welcome the event healthcare standard, which was launched this month following the Manchester Arena inquiry and was mentioned by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove, I have flagged concerns to the Minister’s counterpart in the Department of Health and Social Care, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed), that the requirements may have unintended adverse impacts on mountain rescue teams.
Under that standard, regulated organisations that comprise healthcare professionals would need to register with the Care Quality Commission. Prior to that requirement, temporary sporting events such as fell races and local mountain bike events, which are covered by mountain rescue, were excluded. Mountain rescue teams will be brought within the regulated perimeter, with all the administrative requirements that come with that. Will the Minister therefore work with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care to ensure that the new requirements on healthcare professionals, as they apply to mountain rescue teams, are proportionate and do not impose a disproportionate cost? I will happily share more information with her after the debate.
Secondly, mountain rescue teams across England and Wales are collectively spending around £450,000 a year on insurance covering public liability, employer’s liability, vehicles, medical malpractice and trustees’ responsibilities. On top of that, individual teams often have to pay individual costs locally for buildings, equipment and extra personnel. That is a huge amount to raise through charitable means, and it is hard to justify when these teams are in reality part of our emergency response framework. Extending Crown indemnity, as has been mentioned, or a similar statutory insurance arrangement to mountain rescue teams would make an immediate difference. It would free up resources that could be directly reinvested in life-saving capability, helping my constituents and people across the country who find themselves in peril, often with no other emergency service able to reach them.
Thirdly, let me flag rehabilitation. Mountain rescue volunteers operate in difficult and often dangerous environments, with steep terrain and frequent poor weather. They take part in physically demanding rescues, and the risks are real. If a police officer or member of the armed forces is injured in the line of duty, they have access to established services. Bizarrely, mountain rescue volunteers do not have the same support. Allowing our mountain rescue teams to access existing rehab services is a simple, practical step the Government could take to support them. It would not require new structures or significant funding; it would just recognise that these volunteers face comparable risks and deserve comparable support when something goes wrong. I urge the Minister to look into that proposal as a priority.
Freddie van Mierlo
I thank the hon. Gentleman for outlining those additional benefits, which would definitely be useful for mountain rescue teams. Does he agree they should also be extended to lowland rescue?
Phil Brickell
The hon. Member makes a very good point; we do not have lowland rescue in Bolton, but I do not see why not. Those volunteers are also hard-working and deserve similar support when they go through a traumatic episode.
Finally, on medical supplies, teams such as Bolton mountain rescue are required to carry a full complement of drugs to treat casualties in the field. However, because incidents are unpredictable, a lot of that stock expires before it can be used. Every year, that means more fundraising to replace perfectly good medication that has simply reached the end of its shelf life. There is already an arrangement for swapping out medical gases; extending that to drugs, by allowing unused supplies to be exchanged through the NHS, would save thousands of pounds, reduce waste and ensure that teams always have safe, in-date medication available. Again, I know this falls outside the remit of the Department for Transport, but can the Minister look into that issue with her DHSC counterparts?
Taken together, those proposals would make a real, tangible difference to teams on the ground. At the moment, frankly, too much of the burden still falls on volunteers and their communities. Teams such as Bolton mountain rescue are doing extraordinary work, often with limited resources, because they are committed to helping others. We should be helping them.
Oral Answers to Questions
Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Tomlinson
This is a complex change to implement, but the Government’s position is that it is right to have the same rate of VAT across our country. During the pandemic, there was a cut—a temporary cut—to the rate of VAT and that came at the significant cost of £8 billion. We have to make sure that we can raise revenue from across the country in a fair and consistent way to support the public finances.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility set out its updated forecast for the UK economy, including for unemployment to peak this year before falling in each and every year thereafter. Longer-term problems for young people have been building in our labour market for far too long, with employment rates that are too low and levels of those not in education, employment or training soaring in the last Parliament. We will not allow a generation of young people to be left behind, which is why the Government have committed £820 million for the youth guarantee, strengthening employment support and guaranteeing jobs for the long-term unemployed.
Freddie van Mierlo
I first entered the job market in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, and it was a difficult time for young people, yet today they face even more difficult and uncertain times. The Chancellor’s jobs tax is bearing down on opportunities, and AI is making this worse by potentially pulling up the ladder on graduate jobs that previously included things such as note taking and supporting senior employees in meetings. Will the Chancellor correct course on the unemployment of young people and do more to support their career progress?
Torsten Bell
The hon. Member’s phrasing of his question was very telling about the challenges we all face in our labour market, because while we have seen more jobs created over the last year, there is a longer-term challenge with youth unemployment. If we look at the last Government, we never saw youth employment rates recover to the level seen under the previous Labour Government after the financial crisis, which was exactly the experience he mentioned.
It is important that we grapple with that long-term challenge, and there is the newer challenge with the huge increase in NEET rates in the last Parliament specifically. We absolutely need to focus on both of those, which is why we are focusing apprenticeship funding on young people in particular, why we are introducing the youth guarantee, and why we have the independent review led by Alan Milburn to focus on the root causes of these challenges.
Rachel Reeves
I thank my hon. Friend for what he said about the Leonardo contract at Yeovil, which supports many thousands of jobs in Somerset, and indeed Dorset. I am proud to be the Chancellor who has overseen the biggest uplift in defence spending since the end of the cold war; that has enabled us to support this investment and many others.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Torsten Bell
I thank the hon. Member for his second question, and his enthusiastic volume of questions today. The Government balance the needs of public services with tax revenues. I gently point out that Liberal Democrat Members come to the House day in, day out, and call for more spending—we have heard that happen today—but then oppose every single tax rise or tax change required to make that happen. That is not what serious politics looks like. We need to take tax seriously, and it is time for some serious politics from the Liberal Democrats.
Business Rates
Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dan Tomlinson
Very much so. We want to support legendary landlords. I have my own in my constituency, and I look forward to having a pint with them this weekend to discuss the changes that the Government have made.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
When it comes to business rates, the Government have delivered a masterclass in giving with one hand and taking with the other, leaving pubs and hospitality businesses worse off, but businesses cannot be fooled. They are on top of their numbers, even if the Government are not. Will the Government consider again the Liberal Democrat proposal for an emergency 5% cut in VAT for hospitality, and can he give an answer that does not resort to political point scoring?
Dan Tomlinson
We will not be considering the Liberal Democrats’ policy.
Property Taxes
Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
James Murray
I thank the right hon. Member for his kind words. As he will know, welfare measures are already going through Parliament and being investigated by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disability through the review that he is undertaking. This Government are determined to ensure that the safety net is there for the people who need it, and that the people who can work have the support they need to get and maintain a job.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
What is not speculation is that the largest rise in property taxes happened under the Conservatives, when Liz Truss crashed the economy and increased interest rates for everyone in my constituency. Will the Minister speak to the fact that house prices are different in different parts of the country, and that must be reflected in Treasury thinking about tax and the Budget this year?
James Murray
The hon. Gentleman is right to remind everyone of the record under the short-lived Prime Minister, Liz Truss. I notice that Conservative Members do not refer to that themselves when evaluating the economic situation, but the British people will not forget it. On his wider point about housing across the country, we want to ensure that we are building affordable homes in every part of the country. One of this Government’s priorities has been to reform the planning system, to enable the building of 1.5 million homes and ensure that every community has those homes, so people have homes that they can afford to live in, in the area where they grew up, where they want to live or go to work. That is a central mission of this Government.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I begin by adding my voice and that of my party to the others who have welcomed the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Dan Tomlinson) to the Front Bench.
Like so many other things, property taxes in this country are broken and hopelessly out of date. Council tax is regressive; stamp duty is a transaction tax that slows growth; and business rates are a tax on bricks and mortar that bear no relationship whatever to the amount of money a business might make. It is quite extraordinary that the official Opposition have chosen to debate property taxes, given that I can barely remember any discussion at all in the last Parliament about things that they wanted to tackle in that area. In particular, they did not tackle any of the three things I have mentioned. If it is true that the Labour Government are now thinking about biting the bullet and bringing forward fairer alternatives to those things, I commend them for looking at the issue. However, I caution the Government not to repeat the jobs tax fiasco. Going after property simply as a Treasury tax grab will be a disaster if the Government do not set out a broader vision for property taxation and for housing as a whole.
We agree with parts of the Conservatives’ motion today. We agree with their call to rule out capital gains tax on primary residences. In the general election, we Liberal Democrats set out a way of reforming capital gains tax to make it fairer, one that would reduce that tax for two thirds of people already paying it and increase it for the super-wealthy. That would have raised more revenue than the carte blanche measures that the Labour Government have pursued, so we agree with that part of the motion. We also agree with the Conservatives that the property levy that has been described in newspapers would be a disaster. It would choke up the housing market, stop people from downsizing and slow economic growth, so I hope that if Ministers are considering any of these things, they look at the reaction there has been.
Freddie van Mierlo
In my constituency of Henley and Thame, the average house price is £515,000. Does my hon. Friend agree that the property tax described by the Government so far would be a tax on the south-east and London?
Daisy Cooper
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He will know, as I do from my constituency of St Albans, that many people have spent decades and decades living in their property, which they might have bought for a few thousand pounds. It might now be worth a huge amount, but they might be asset-rich and cash-poor. People in that situation are incredibly scared by the reports they have seen in newspapers of a potential tax of the kind that has been described.
There are parts of the Conservatives’ motion we agree with, however we are open in principle to the idea of a land value tax. In principle, land value taxes can create more fairness in the system and produce a more efficient use of land, but of course, the devil is always in the detail. It would depend on the design of any land value tax and any exemptions that might be introduced. We Liberal Democrats have previously set out policies for how we would replace the broken business rates system with a commercial landowner levy. That is an example of how the principle of land value could be applied to commercial land.
Oral Answers to Questions
Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Emma Reynolds)
My hon. Friend is a fantastic campaigner for the breweries in his constituency. We want the drinks sector to go from strength to strength. We are reviewing the responses to the consultation on the threshold that my hon. Friend mentioned.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Darren Jones)
This Government, as the hon. Member will know, has already given £26 billion of additional funding to the national health service and additional funding to the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government for social care. We know that we have more to do. The Government are working hard on that and will set out further details in due course.
Agricultural and Business Property Relief
Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Graham Stuart
My hon. Friend is right. I say to the Minister that rather than looking at the issue through a fairness lens or an “attack wealth” lens, it must be in terms of incentives. Incentives are what drives behaviour, and behaviour is what drives wealth creation and security. If we come at it with some sort of A-level politics student’s approach, rather than one grounded in human behaviour and incentive, and get it wrong, we will see reduced investment from farm to farm and business to business.
If someone is not buying that new piece of planting machinery, they will not be investing in the training of their staff or they will not take on that extra employee who would have been brought on, because to justify expenditure they needed to invest in them, pay them more, and bring on more staff. All of that goes into reverse. I hope that as they come face to face with the realities of being responsible for the economy, Ministers will take that onboard and start to have a different philosophical approach in the way they do policy.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Does the right hon. Member share the concerns that my farmers have about their mental health, who are already in an industry where mental health issues are very high? They are concerned about the deadline of April 2026 and what impact that could have on their wellbeing.
Graham Stuart
I do. Someone only has to meet farmers to know that farming is already quite a lonely profession, with a high level of suicide anyway and high rates of depression. Combining that with this figure, it sounds hyperbolic to suggest that people will kill themselves ahead of this deadline, but knowing the farmers as I do in my area, I do not find it that hyperbolic. I hope it proves not to be the case, but it is a serious issue to be considered.
The impact of changes to BPR extends beyond farming communities. When asked about the changes, 85% of family businesses surveyed by the Confederation of British Industry said they would reduce investment by an average of 17%, an issue which colleagues are rightly raising. That will stifle long-term growth and harm the broader network of businesses that depend on them. They say that trust takes years to build, seconds to break and forever to repair. As I walked down Whitehall, shoulder to shoulder with farmers, their anger was palpable because they had believed the Prime Minister’s promises yet were betrayed. To Labour’s credit, it won the trust of rural Britain, through every door knocked, leaflet printed and promise made. It went from representing two rural seats in 2019 to 40 today.
The Prime Minister pledged to form a new relationship with farmers based on respect. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) questioned where those proud rural Labour MPs are today; they are certainly not here facing the music. As usual, they are leaving the Minister to do it on his own. He asked us to judge his Government on their actions and not their words, so that is what we will do. In November 2023, the current Environment Secretary, in a room full of farmers, looked them straight in the eye and told them
“We have no intention of changing APR.”
By November 2024, that promise meant nothing. Labour waited 14 years to deliver its Budget, and it made a choice not just to change APR, but halve it. One constituent shared their shock as they calculated the impact, realising it would cost their family £300,000. Another constituent, William Hodgson, who runs a 600-acre farm near Withernsea with his mother, faces an inheritance tax bill of £1.5 million, with a post-tax profit of £150,000 a year. That means he would have to dedicate an entire decade of profits just to cover the cost of that tax. It was at that moment that the most valuable currency in politics—trust—was lost.
In February 2024, the Prime Minister told the NFU that it deserves a Government that listens and heeds early warnings. The planned changes to APR are not due until 2026, leaving the Prime Minister with one year, two fiscal events and ample parliamentary sitting days, with many colleagues all too happy to constructively work with him, to come to this House and tell us that he has listened and will change course. The question is whether he has the courage to do so.
It will have been hard to hear all of us and our chants while he was in Rio and we were in Whitehall; farmers at his north London surgeries will be few and far between. However, I hope he will listen to the hon. Member for Penrith and Solway (Markus Campbell-Savours), on his own side, who spoke bravely against the policy during the debate in the Chamber last month.
Finance Bill
Freddie van Mierlo ExcerptsWednesday 11th December 2024
(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Finance Act 2025 View all Finance Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the whole House Amendments as at 11 December 2024 - (11 Dec 2024)
Dr Sandher
By building the houses we need, we get the revenue from the tax changes we see today. Indeed, that is the entire point of our programme, in addition to the planning reforms that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading Central (Matt Rodda) referred to. From the tax revenue we raise from the measure we are debating and others, we will build a nation where every person has a stake in our society and a nation where working hard makes a difference.
Dr Sandher
I will make some progress. We are creating good jobs through our measures in the green transition and the caring economy and yes, building homes for the young to live in. Our warm homes plan will upgrade 300,000 homes and create tens of thousands of good construction jobs. Our expansion in early years childcare will see more women in work and tens of thousands more jobs. Our affordable homes programme means more homes for young people, and for those who are struck down by hopelessness—
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 8, and to refer to clauses 47 to 49.
Clearly, just six or so months in, we will not have seen the full effects of these measures, but we will have started to see them. We will have heard whether there are concerns from faith leaders, and what the early effects are on the number of applications for EHCP plans and so on. It is also right that we have asked that, within 18 months of this Act being passed, we report back on the impact of the music and dance scheme, on which we know there has been a partial concession from the Government, but it remains a very sensitive area none the less.
The Government say that they expect to raise £1.5 billion from this measure in 2025-26, rising to £1.7 billion—I think—in 2029-30. They expect 3,000 children to be displaced in academic year 2024-25; 14,000 in academic year 2025-26; and 35,000 eventually. These are enormous numbers of children who could have their education disrupted. Parents will be denied a choice that would be open to them in most other places in the world. It is also important that we look at the assumptions behind these numbers from HMRC’s policy paper—they are the exact assumptions that may then come into question in that post-legislative review, which our new clause 8 calls for.
The Government first expect fees to rise by 10% on average as a result of these measures. In fact, the actual mathematical cost of putting 20% VAT on fees is, in fact, an increase in cost of about 15%, by the time we net off the ability to reclaim cost on inputs. More significantly, we must put it in the context of everything else that is going on. This year, we are also seeing a business rates increase for about half of private schools, an increase in contributions on the teachers’ pension scheme, and as with so many other sectors, a massive hike in national insurance contributions. Those are on top of any other normal cost pressures that other organisations might have. Those are three things, as well as the VAT increase, that are direct transfers from the independent school sector to the Exchequer. Although, technically speaking, they may not be the measures that we are discussing today, they very much affect the ability of schools to be able to absorb any of those price increases.
To inform their conclusion on how many children will be displaced in the private sector, the Government have, to an extent, relied on one statistic. They say that the number of private pupils has remained steady, despite a large real increase in average school fees since 2000. Considering price elasticity is a mathematically flawed approach. Up until very recently, we used to talk about 7% of children going to private schools. Now we say that it is 6%, because the proportion has come down. But at a time when pupil numbers have been growing, other things being equal, we would expect the number of children at private schools to have been increasing as the proportion stayed roughly constant.
Moreover, it makes no sense at all to look at gradual price increases over a 10, 20 or 20-plus year timeframe and to say we could conclude anything from that on the effect of an overnight price increase of 15%, 20% or more. The Government have come to the conclusion that we will end up with a long-run steady state of 37,000 fewer pupils in private education in the UK.
Freddie van Mierlo
The right hon. Gentleman is right to interrogate the Government’s numbers. Does he share my concern around SEND provision with children returning to state schools and the fact that teaching assistants are not fully paid for in state schools? That will be an additional burden on those schools.
Damian Hinds
Of course, there has been a huge increase in the number of teaching assistants over the past 14 years, but the hon. Member is right that there are particular issues for children with special educational needs, which I will come on to.
The Government estimate that there will be 37,000 fewer children in private schools and of those, 35,000 will go to state schools. What happens to the others? Some will be international students who will not come to this country, so that is a loss of export earnings, and some will be home-schooled. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) mentioned that, and we have not talked about it a great deal, but it is significant. The Government will say, “It’s only 35,000.” That is like a pretty substantially sized football stadium if we picture the number of children whose education will be changed by the measure. They say, “Don’t worry because it is only a small proportion of the total number in state schools.” At the end of the day, the number is from a spreadsheet; there is no guarantee that it will be 35,000 or any other particular number. In fact, it is rather odd that they came up with a single number at all. I would think that in any economic analysis like this we would at least have a range in which there is a central planning assumption, but also a reasonable worst-case scenario.
More importantly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) mentioned earlier, the effect will not be even. I have lost count of the number of parliamentary questions I have put down trying to get out of the Government where they think those 35,000 children will show up, because there is a huge difference in where they show up. It is worthless having empty places in primary schools in inner London if that is not where the children will be displaced to from private schools. In broad terms, there will not be that much of an impact on state primary schools. There will be on state sixth forms in London, but the big effect will be on individual places, particularly in 11-to-16 education. They include not only in counties we might guess, but also Bristol, Bury, Surrey, Salford and a much longer list besides.
On why the proposed review is so important, and we need to examine this in the post-legislative scrutiny, the Government say the revenue costs will be £270 million a year. That is, in other words, the cost of educating those extra 35,000 in the state sector. They go on to say that they have calculated the number based on the average spend per pupil in England in 2024-25. That is wrong. It is a mistake to base it on the average pupil because we know children with special educational needs will disproportionately have to transfer, and that will have a higher cost to their education.
Moreover, we will get more families—we do not know how many—applying for an EHCP. The limiting case is where a child is in a private school right now and their parents are paying considerably more than the average place. They will find that they cannot afford the extra 20%, so they will apply for an EHCP and the child could get placed back in the same school, with the entire cost now being picked up the state.
Farming and Inheritance Tax
Freddie van Mierlo Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)
My constituency is a very rural one with 751 farms. It is an extremely important issue to my constituents and me. I hear their concerns and deeply empathise with their worries and fears. While it is a difficult decision for the Government to introduce an inheritance tax, it is one that is unfortunately necessary. I welcome the opportunity from the Opposition to debate the matter, largely because it allows us the time to discuss the reasons why inheritance tax has to be introduced.
There is a crucial need to understand the unique challenges faced by rural communities and the immense value they add to society. Farmers across the country, and most definitely in my constituency, are not just farmers; they help in a number of different situations, including recently with the floods in the Forest of Dean. They are vital to all of us in the community.
However, the economic turmoil of the past 14 years has left the Government with the difficult task of balancing the needs of the British people with the economic realities of running the country. The failure of the previous Government to secure a Brexit deal that protected the interests of farmers left many in a vulnerable position, struggling with increased costs, trade barriers and uncertainty. This Government’s new deal for farms aims to safeguard farmers’ interests, and we will do all we can to support them.
We are using the Government’s purchasing powers to ensure that 50% of food consumed in hospitals, army bases and prisons is from British farmers, putting more money in their pockets. We are introducing grid reform, allowing farmers to plug their renewable energy into the national grid. We are also seeking a new veterinary agreement with the EU to ensure that our friends on the continent can enjoy the incredible produce that Britain has to offer. This Government are actively working to improve the lives of farmers in a way that will benefit the agricultural sector and the broader economy.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
Will the hon. Member accept that the changes to inheritance tax damage the economic realities in the UK because farmers will be disincentivised from investing in their land and increasing its productivity?
Matt Bishop
Although I empathise with the hon. Member’s comment, that is not exactly what I hear from the farmers in my constituency, which I will get on to shortly.
The impacts of Brexit, including trade barriers, labour shortages and disruptions in supply chains, have undeniably placed significant pressure on our farmers. It is somewhat ironic that the Opposition choose to complain about this Government’s actions when it was their failures that created this mess. The NFU even criticised DEFRA as recently as September for significant underspending amounting to £358 million over the past three years.
My constituents and, more importantly today, farmers in the Forest of Dean have felt the impact of the challenges first hand. Small businesses and families are all facing tough times, and the Opposition must acknowledge the broader context. The new initiatives that the Government are introducing, from the support for British farmers to green energy reforms, are vital steps forward, and I do not underestimate the difficulties that lie ahead for all of us. There is no quick fix for the challenges we face, and I fully recognise the pain and frustration felt by those who are struggling, especially in rural areas such as mine. But the Government’s focus is on long-term growth, sustainability and providing the tools that our farmers need to thrive. It is inaccurate to say, as has been raised, that no farmers agree with this policy; some farmers agree with it. They want better services, and they are happy to accept that reform needs to take place.
Some might be surprised to hear that I agree with the Leader of the Opposition’s recent comments to the media reminding us of the profound impact of the rising cost of living on individuals across the UK and farmers. She is correct that the impact is felt deeply and intensely by all in the country, including my constituents and farmers in the Forest of Dean, but let us not forget one important factor: it was under the previous Conservative Government that the cost of living crisis began for farmers. It is under this Government that it will end.
Jon Pearce
I will not give way at this stage. Those estates over the threshold will have a 50% reduction in the amount they pay. We have already heard that the seven-year rule will continue to apply, so farming families will be able to make plans for the future.
Jon Pearce
Sorry, I will not give way at this stage.
This debate has, however, shone an important light on one issue, which I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) for raising: the fact that our farmers are working day in, day out, for very little profit. The question is how we support them to be profitable again. Energy bills are one of the biggest costs farming businesses face. This Government will help bring down those costs through GB Energy and by introducing grid reform to allow farmers to plug renewables into the national grid. We must protect them from being undercut by foreign imports.