Welfare Spending

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend acknowledge the words of Richard Hughes of the OBR, who said in a report last week:

“The UK cannot afford the array of promises that it has made to the public”?

He also said that debt is on a trajectory that the UK “can’t sustain”.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. It is essential that we put Britain’s finances on a sustainable path. All benefits are funded by taxpayers or borrowing, so every time the cost of benefits rises, so does the burden on taxpayers, or the debt we place on future generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I always agree with my hon. Friend, especially when she says that I should agree with my mum. I thank her for her intervention, and I agree that nobody’s background should shape their future. We are in this place to create a better social security system, a better NHS and better public services, so that children today in all our constituencies can access the support that they need, in the form that they need, enabling them to truly thrive.

It deeply saddens me that in my constituency of Bournemouth East, children are growing up in poverty. Some 27% of children in my constituency are growing up in relative poverty; in the ward of Boscombe West, that figure is 43%, and in the ward of Springbourne, it is 36%. That is unacceptable in 2025 in modern Britain, and we should not put up with it. Looking beyond my constituency, a near-record 2.8 million people are out of work due to long-term sickness—thrown on the scrapheap. Some 300,000 people fall out of work every year because of their health, and part of the reason for that is the underfunding of our public services; that leaves people on waiting lists, and waiting lists kill.

We know that 4.5 million children are in relative poverty after housing costs, a figure that has risen by 900,000 since 2010. We also know that the Tories presided over the worst Parliament ever recorded for economic inactivity; it rose by over 800,000 to 9.4 million people. We hear from Opposition Members about the connection between work and welfare, but when they presided over such economic inactivity, such poor productivity and such sluggish growth, is it any wonder—

[John Glen]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Tom Hayes]

I will not be taking an intervention.

Is it any wonder that, as a consequence, we have people who are in significant difficulty, particularly when the social security and public services that they rely on have been chopped back?

As such, I welcome the launch of the child poverty taskforce as an early priority of this Government. I was pleased to meet the Minister just last week to talk about my priorities, which include trying to make sure that play is not squeezed out of childhood and that we have a social security system to meet the needs of children, particularly in the disadvantaged areas of my constituency.

Pension Schemes Bill

John Glen Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 7th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

That was not the support I was hoping for from the Chair—understandable, but harsh. I will come to some of the points that the right hon. Member raises. I think he is referring particularly to pre-1997 indexation, which I shall come to.

As I said, the Bill includes a reserved power that will allow the Government to require larger auto-enrolment schemes to invest a set percentage into wider assets. That reflects the wider calls that have been made for this change but have not led to its taking place. What pension providers are saying is that they face a collective action problem, where employers focus too narrowly on the lowest charges, not what matters most to savers: the highest returns. I do not currently intend to use the power in the Bill, but its existence gives clarity to the industry that, this time, change will actually come.

Some argue—I will come to some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier)—that this somehow undermines the duty that pension providers have to savers. That is simply wrong. First, the Bill includes clear safeguards to prioritise savers’ interests and is entirely consistent with the core principle of trustees’ fiduciary duties. Clause 38 includes an explicit mechanism, which I have discussed with Members from the main three parties in this House, to allow providers to opt out if complying risks material detriment to savers. Secondly—this is the key point that motivates a lot of the Bill—savers are being let down by the status quo. There is a reason major pension schemes across the rest of the world are already investing in this more diverse range of assets.

Fragmentation within the pensions industry happens within providers, not just between them. Some insurers have thousands of legacy funds, so clause 41 extends to contract schemes the ability that trust-based schemes already have to address that. Providers will be able to transfer savers to another arrangement without proactive individual consent if, and only if, it is independently certified as being in the member’s best interest.

Another point that I hope is of common ground across the House is that we need to do more to realise the untapped potential of the local government pension scheme in England and Wales. We need scale to get the most out of the LGPS’s £400 billion-worth of assets. Again, the Bill will turn that consensus into concrete action. It provides for LGPS assets spread across 86 administering authorities to be fully consolidated into six pools. That will ensure that the assets used to provide pensions to its more than 6 million members—predominantly low-paid women—are managed effectively and at scale. Each authority will continue to set its investment strategy, including how much local investment it expects to see. In fact, these reforms will build on the LGPS’s strong track record of investing in local economic growth, requiring pension pools to work with the likes of mayoral combined authorities. In time, bigger and more visible LGPS pools will help to crowd private pension funds and other institutional investors into growth assets across the country.

Our measures will build scale, support investment and deliver for savers, but the Bill does more to ensure that working people get the maximum bang for every buck saved. To reinforce the shift away from an excessively narrow focus on costs, clause 5 provides for a new value-for-money framework. For the first time, we will require pension schemes to prove that they provide value for money, with standardised metrics. That will help savers to compare schemes more easily, and drive schemes themselves to focus on the value that they deliver. For persistently poor performers, regulators will have the power to enforce consolidation. That will protect savers from getting stuck in poorly performing schemes—something that can knock thousands of pounds off their pension pots.

We are also at last addressing the small pension pots issue. I was out door-knocking in Swansea earlier this spring, and a woman in her mid-30s told me that something was really winding her up—and it was not me knocking on the door. [Laughter.] This is a very unsupportive audience. It was trying to keep track of small amounts of pension savings that she had from old jobs; the only thing that was worse was that her husband kept going on about it. There are now 13 million small pension pots that hold £1,000 or less floating around. Another million are being added each year. That increases hassle, which is what she was complaining about, with over £31 billion-worth of pension pots estimated to currently be lost. It costs the pensions industry around £240 million each year to administer. Clause 20 provides powers for those pots to be automatically brought together into one pension scheme that has been certified as delivering good value. Anyone who wants to can of course opt out, but this change alone could boost the pension pot of an average earner by around £1,000.

Of course, once you have a pension pot, the question is: what do you do with it? We often talk about pension freedoms, but there is nothing liberating about the complexity currently involved in turning a pension pot into a retirement income. You have to consolidate those pots, choose between annuities, lump sums, drawdowns or cashing out. You have to analyse different providers and countless products. Choice can be a good thing, but this overwhelming complexity is not—77% of DC savers yet to access their pension have no clear plan about how to do so.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I agree with a lot of what the Minister is saying. Given what was said last week by the Financial Conduct Authority on targeted support, would he look again at what is being resisted by the Money and Pensions Service? It is not prepared to work with the pension schemes to allow automatic appointments so that pension savers can be guided to better outcomes. I realise that MaPS will say that it is too busy, but this is a key moment. If we could get people to engage at age 50, say, we would see vastly different outcomes for them if they invested properly, and in better ways, with their pensions.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question, and for the discussions that we have had on this important topic. He spent years working on this. The priority for MaPS right now is to ensure that we have the system set up to deal with the additional calls that are likely to come when pension dashboards are rolled out, but I will keep in mind the point that he raises. I think he and a number of hon. Members wrote to me about exactly that point. As I promised in my letter, I will keep it under review, but we must not overburden the system, because we need it to be able to deliver when pension dashboards come onstream.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Garnier]

It is an important question, and one that I will come to in due course. Watch this space for a fascinating manifesto in the run-up to the next general election—I am sure everybody looks forward to it.

[John Glen]

Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), in every election we all say that we cherish the triple lock, and we seek to gain electoral advantage from it, but do we not need to come to a settled collective view in society about the combination of the triple lock and the inadequacy of auto-enrolment? The 8% contribution is not enough, as the hon. Gentleman said; we need to get to Australian levels. One speaks to the other. Unless we can take a holistic view of those two elements and the third pillar, we are not being truly honest about some of the trade-offs, given that we are dealing with £70 billion of tax relief at the moment.

[Mark Garnier]

The former City Minister raises a good and important point. He tries to bring together a number of related but quite disparate issues that we need to think carefully about. I would not want to make Conservative party policy on the hoof at the Dispatch Box, though the Minister urges me to do so. These are important points, and I think my right hon. Friend would understand that I would not want to rush into anything without careful, considered thought. These are issues on which he and I—and the Minister, of course—might get together.

As I said, we need a bold, ambitious plan to ensure that every worker in this country can look forward to a retirement free from poverty and insecurity. That means looking again at contribution rates, the role of employers and how we support those who are excluded from the system.

Another omission in the Bill is the failure to extend the benefits of auto-enrolment to the self-employed. There are over 4 million self-employed people in the UK—people who are driving our economy, creating jobs and taking risks. Too many of them face the prospect of old age in poverty, with little or no private pension provision. Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that only 20% of self-employed workers earning over £10,000 a year save into a private pension. With the self-employed sector continuing to grow, the Bill misses an opportunity to come up with innovative solutions for this underserved group in the workplace.

Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill

John Glen Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I wanted to speak in this debate to try to get behind some of the headlines and challenges that those on the Government Benches face in getting to a settled view today, by looking back over the last years the Conservatives had in government at some of the lessons that we must draw from that experience but which are relevant to consider today.

I will not be able to support the proposals, not because I do not think some of them have significant merit, or because I do not have the greatest respect for the Minister for Social Security and Disability, who has spent 31 years in this place and who I believe will do all that is asked of him, but because I do not think that the changes in the Bill are sufficiently ambitious to deal with the scale of the challenges we face.

I was in government for seven years and I was in the Treasury for most of that time. During the covid epidemic, we had to make some pretty quick changes while the economy was shut down overnight. They involved changes to benefits, standing up a furlough scheme very quickly, bounce back loans and many interventions to try to keep our public services going, and they were at the core of some of the patterns of behavioural change that we now see in our benefits system. I was looking at the numbers for my constituency, which I recognise is a wonderful place and also quite a wealthy place that does not have some of the embedded challenges in other parts of the country. The number of PIP claims in January 2019 was 2,065 and in April 2025 it was 4,211. The vast majority of my constituents and the vast majority of people in the country cannot understand how those numbers have doubled in such a short amount of time.

I fully respect the aspirations of the Secretary of State and her ministerial team in seeking to address that, because we have to come to terms with what we can afford as a country. I also respect sincerely the remarks of the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), whose constituency is rather different from mine, because I think we are united in this place in wanting to look after the most vulnerable. I want to see those who are suffering, who are disabled and who need support from the state to receive that support in a timely way. What I do not want to see is people written off permanently.

About 12 or 14 years ago in this House, we had a debate about mental health. Several Members of Parliament stood up and bravely talked about their own mental health challenges. We then went on a journey to bring parity of esteem to mental health and physical health in our benefits system. I believe that that pathway into assessment for mental health has not worked. It writes people off too easily and it does not serve them well, by leaving them in a place where they are, on an enduring basis, reliant on the state. As a country, we cannot afford it. It is time to legislate for more resilience: resilience in our country and in those who receive benefits such that they can get out of that place of dependency, because I do not think it is a happy place for anyone to be.

When I reflect on the changes proposed today, I can see the hand of the Treasury. I can see the fiscal imperative. I can see the public finances and what is now likely to happen in the autumn, which will mean more tax rises. Now, for some on the Government Benches that will be a price worth paying, but we as a country will lack the productive capacity to grow if we tax those who create jobs to a level where they just will not create jobs any further. We have to come to terms with that profound reality; if we do not, we are in a death spiral as a country.

I give credit to the Government for some of the steps they are taking today. However, for reasons different from those stated by many on the Government Benches, I will not be able to support the Bill. I do not think it is holistic, goes far enough or deals with the profound tragedy that has happened to our benefits system as a consequence of covid and our public finances.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

I always appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks in the Treasury Committee and in the Chamber as an extremely fair-minded colleague. I appreciated his remarks in yesterday’s statement and the admission that the previous Government’s handling of our recovery from the pandemic was not what it should have been. However, does he not recognise that the constituents with whom I meet now rely on their PIP to get to their places of work because of the stripping away of council funding for bus routes, social care and all the services that were left in tatters by the previous Government?

[John Glen]

I reciprocate the hon. Lady’s warm sentiments. She makes her political points, some of which will be true in some circumstances, and some of which will not.

My point today to everyone in this House is this: let us be real, honest and true about the trajectory of growth in welfare spending in this country, and let us be honest about what we can afford. We face a transformed landscape of threats to this country, with calls for more spending on defence. We have to address our priorities, but we must also recognise that the most vulnerable need continued support. However, the system we have brings too many into dependency on the state, and that is not right.

Welfare Reform

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

Our new jobs and careers service applies in all parts of the UK—including Scotland—to help get more people back into work with personalised support. The spending review has delivered an additional £9 billion for Scotland. It is the biggest ever settlement in the history of devolution. I hope that the SNP matches our ambition to get more people into good work instead of cutting the employability budget as it has done in recent years.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I think that the vast majority of people in this country believe in a welfare system that is compassionate to the vulnerable, and particularly to the disabled, but they can no longer understand why so many people here—in contrast to other similar countries—are in this situation where they are not working.

[Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)]

It’s because you were in power for 14 years.

[John Glen]

Yes, we were in power for 14 years, and during covid, when I was a Minister, we made decisions such as stopping face-to-face assessments because we could not do them. We all recognise that the recovery from that covid time has not gone as well as it should, but if the Secretary of State cannot deliver a shift in the numbers, the economy will be in a death spiral. She needs to recognise that these changes need to be reset radically to meet the country’s expectations.

[Liz Kendall]

I absolutely believe that we have to reset the system. We have to make sure that everybody who can work gets the opportunity to do so and the support they need. That is precisely what we are trying to do with these plans. I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman, who I admire, that it is precisely that failure and that mess that we are now trying to tackle.

Winter Fuel Payment

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight the targeting. Setting the means test threshold at £35,000 ensures that it is well above the income levels of pensioners in poverty and is around the average earnings level. On policy in Scotland, an important principle of devolution is that those are decisions for the Scottish Government, but they are also decisions for which they will be held accountable.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Over several fiscal events over seven years, the option of removing the winter fuel payment from the wealthiest was resisted by the previous Government because there was not seen to be an effective rationing mechanism and there were considerable presentational challenges. Will the Minister confirm that pensioners with no mortgage and with significant tax-wrapped savings in individual savings accounts or venture capital trusts, but with a monthly pension of £2,500, will still be fully entitled to receive the winter fuel payment?

[Torsten Bell]

I always enjoy discussing technical details with the right hon. Gentleman. I set the position out clearly in my initial statement: means-testing is based on taxable income of £35,000, which answers his question.

Mansion House Accord

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Torsten Bell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has long talked about both the issues that she raises: the regional balance of investment and the ability of growing firms to get hold of growth finance. The latter is a long-standing problem in the UK economy, and today’s accord will help to address it. Although we talk about private assets and investment helping with infrastructure, it is also about providing growth capital to a wider range of firms. Obviously, the onus is on us and private asset managers to provide ways for pension funds to direct capital. Those are often small-ticket items, and pension funds will need them to be aggregated up to a higher level. That is exactly the work of the British Business Bank, which I know she has engaged with through the Select Committee. On both points, she is 100% right.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Undoubtedly, the City of London is not in the best possible place when it comes to where it is investing and the amount invested in UK equities. When I was a Minister, we had the Hill review, the Kent review, the Austin review and the capital markets review. Everything was done to seek to open up the City to more initial public offerings and more momentum. This systemic undervaluing of UK equities, and therefore the lack of investment in them, needs to be set alongside the fact that billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is used to enrich the size of pension schemes through tax reliefs. I urge the Minister to continue engaging with the City. I welcome the voluntary commitments given, but we must come to the point where the risk-aversion of DB schemes is called out, considering the amount of taxpayers’ money that is effectively going into them. Will the Minister continue to look carefully at the options available, given that the previous Government sought—and his Government will no doubt continue to seek—to meet them wherever possible?

[Torsten Bell]

I always enjoy discussing these things with the right hon. Member, as we have done over recent months. He offers a recognition of the challenge facing the country, and in focusing on what we can do to start changing things, he takes a much better position than that adopted by his Front Benchers.

I recognise the right hon. Member’s point about risk-aversion. There is a need for more innovation in our pension landscape more generally—that is one of the areas in which I am glad to see progress. I take a slightly more positive view than he does on the consensus that things need to change. We are seeing that in the pensions industry more generally, partly in relation to investing in a wider range of assets, as well as in embracing the agenda that we are setting out for a smaller number of bigger pension funds that are able to take different kinds of risks.

The right hon. Member asks specifically about public equities. My view is that the accord from the industry today will support that by funding a pipeline of companies that can grow to the level at which they can list publicly. Also, private assets will include private shares, including the alternative investment market and others. I think the picture is slightly more positive than the one he paints, but I am not hiding from the wider question he raises about capital markets. The UK Government, the Chancellor and my colleague the City Minister are focused on that—he will have heard their words on ISA reform and the rest of it. I look forward to further conversations on that.

Winter Fuel Payment

John Glen Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for his advocacy on this issue. [Interruption.] I will respond as I go through my speech; he has made a very sound point.

This is about tough choices. We all have to make tough choices, and being in government is hard. Those of us on either side of the House who have been in government know that it is difficult, but we make choices, and then we are held responsible. Conservative Members understand that, because we were held responsible.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

On 20 November 2023, when I was the Paymaster General, I made some comments about the winter fuel payment. The right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones), who is now Chief Secretary to the Treasury, wrote to the Chancellor at the time and asked whether we could confirm that we would not be removing the winter fuel payment, because pensioners would be deeply concerned. My view, having had that put on a list of options when I was Chief Secretary, was that there was no way it would be right to do so. I knew, for example, that 71% of pensioners with a disability would lose that valued and completely necessary extra funding—there was not a rationing mechanism that was efficient for the poorest pensioners. I expected to be held to account, which was why I did not do it. I was therefore somewhat surprised when, 25 days into a Labour Government, they reversed the policy that they had challenged me about several months before.

[Joy Morrissey]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and one that I was going to make. This is about choices, and it is about the most vulnerable—the disabled pensioners who we did not have a way to test for. There was no mechanism to protect them, and I am very glad that my right hon. Friend chose to protect the most vulnerable disabled pensioners. By protecting everyone, we ensured that the most vulnerable were protected, and that was a tough choice that we made when in government. To be honest, I expected a Labour Government to make the same kind of choice, to protect the most vulnerable disabled pensioners, who have been negatively impacted by this choice. I would have expected better from a Labour Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matthew Patrick]

The hon. Gentleman uses the words “suppose” and “sorry state”. It is no wonder Conservative Members lost; they were in total denial about their failure for this country. Now is the right time to end the status quo, end the incessant decline under the Conservatives and put a huge amount of investment back into our NHS. I, for one, am proud that we have had five months of falling waiting times. I want Conservative Members to welcome such good news for our NHS—news that helps all the people in this country.

[John Glen]

The hon. Gentleman is very generous in giving way. I have listened carefully to the speeches this afternoon with respect to our tenure in office and regrets that we will have time to reflect on. I accept that. However, having been a Minister and a Parliamentary Private Secretary for 12 years, I want to tell the hon. Gentleman that though making the decision to remove the winter fuel payment for that population may be desirable— I acknowledge and have said that it may be desirable for people in the higher levels—it needs to have a mechanism or a proxy to verify what would be fair and which vulnerable people would be affected. I put it to him that if somebody only has an income of £13,500, they are in a state of vulnerability that means that no Government should take that away. The choice we made was based on the options available. If there had been an easier way of doing that at a higher level, I would have been sympathetic to that. Those are the real choices that one actually has to face in government.

[Matthew Patrick]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member, including for the way in which he puts his point. He will hopefully share my relief, then, about the household support fund, which I often find my constituents do not know about. The fund is not reported heavily in the media, so it would be wise for us all to take the opportunity in this debate to reiterate that that support is available to people who are just above the threshold and who might just miss out on accessing the winter fuel allowance, so that they know that. I signpost many concerned constituents to Citizens Advice Wirral and support them in accessing the money available through the household support fund, hundreds of millions of pounds of which has come from this Government.

Conservative Members rightly talk about the need to relieve pressures and protect the most vulnerable. However, I question where their outrage was when their Government, back in 2021, broke their manifesto commitment and suspended the triple lock; I wonder where their outrage was when their leader recently suggested that we should look at means-testing access to the state pension; and where was their outrage when only months ago the shadow Chancellor suggested scrapping the triple lock all together?

It is Labour politicians who are committed to protecting pensioners’ incomes and delivering support to those in need. I have mentioned the household support fund, and we are ending the Tories’ disastrous plans to drag a record number of pensioners into paying income tax by uprating personal tax thresholds from April 2028. Unlike the Tories, we have an iron-clad commitment to the triple lock, which will see the state pension of millions increase by more than £470 this year. I would like to hear them welcome that. We are supporting those caring for their loved ones by increasing the income threshold for carer’s allowance so that more than 60,000 carers will benefit by the end of this Parliament.

Times are tough and this Labour Government have made tough decisions to get our country back on track. As I mentioned, NHS waiting times have now fallen for five consecutive months. We have not had that for a long time. We have made a deal with GPs so that healthcare in the community works for everyone, we have targeted income support to those in the most difficulty and we have launched the biggest ever drive to ensure that those who can claim pension credit do so, with almost 50,000 more pensioners now getting the money they are entitled to. The Tory status quo meant only decline for this country. With the Government’s plan for change, we will get the country back on its feet.

Oral Answers to Questions

John Glen Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is correct to highlight the importance of tackling economic inactivity in order to drive up economic growth. This Government understand the negative effects that unemployment can have on mental health, particularly among young people, which can impact future prospects. The youth guarantee will help address barriers faced by young people to ensure that they can access quality training opportunities and apprenticeships or help to find work, boosting their confidence and giving them the very best chance of success in the workplace.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

A few weeks ago, I visited Salisbury jobcentre and I met Kirstie Reakes and George Thornley, who are helping me organise a jobs fair on Thursday 8 May. They could not have been more helpful. Their encyclopaedic knowledge of the local jobs market and businesses was impressive. Will the Minister congratulate them and thank them for the help they are giving me with the jobs fair in Salisbury Guildhall on 8 May? Will he also reflect on what incentives jobcentres could have to reach out to businesses and deepen their knowledge of local labour markets?

[Andrew Western]

The right hon. Gentleman is correct to raise the issue of jobcentres reaching out to local employers. We know that we have a significant issue with whether the jobcentre is the vehicle of choice to advertise local job opportunities. That is a long-standing issue that we are keen to address. I am delighted to congratulate his local jobcentre on the work it is doing to promote the jobs fair.

Agricultural Property Relief

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

I had put in to speak, but when I saw the attendance in the Chamber, I thought I would exercise a self-denying ordinance. That seems to have been counterproductive, so I will take a couple of minutes to drill down into some of the underlying assumptions in relation to this issue.

Let us bear in mind that there are three ways in which agricultural land can be passed on in succession. It can be relieved under agricultural property relief, under business property relief, or under a combination of the two. Hitherto, that has offered executry practitioners and others a range of different options. Frankly, as long as the land qualified as agricultural farming land, it did not really matter which route was taken.

In fact, any value was pretty academic because there was 100% relief in any event. I suspect that is why the HMRC guidance in relation to business property relief says that for a relief claimed under BPR, the book value, if I can use that shorthand, should be used. There is then no need to have the full market value. The letter that the Chancellor sent to the Treasury Committee on 15 November last year made no reference to those estates that passed on land under BPR only. To my mind, it is almost certainly the case that a large number of other farms will be caught by the measure that have not been included in Treasury calculations.

That view is reinforced today by the publication of the report by the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, which, as the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst) said, is a non-departmental public body of DEFRA. The body is levy funded, but the press release says that it is not for it to say whether inheritance tax should be exigible in these circumstances—it just wishes to inform the debate with its analysis. Its analysis is that 42,204 farms out of 54,938 of 50 hectares or more will be affected.

That must surely give the Treasury some cause for concern, and a basis on which it could pause the change. We still have a long time to go; it will not be in the Finance Bill until October or November of this year. Where an element of doubt exists, it would surely be sensible for everyone concerned if the Treasury were to engage in a meaningful dialogue with the farming unions and others.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman is making an extremely fair assessment. Does he acknowledge that the Treasury is full of capable civil servants and Ministers who have a number of other options available to them? No doubt the argument will be that there is a black hole to fill, but even if one does accept that, there are still better options overall for the agricultural and rural communities that serve us across this country.

[Mr Carmichael]

There are other options. On another day, with more time available, we might be able to look at what the tax take will be for the changes. The Secretary of State, when he gave evidence to the Select Committee, said that they were not going to be a problem because most people will avoid them. In fact, there will be opportunities for that to be the case.

The underlying concern here, which the Minister has the opportunity to address, is whether the Government still adhere to the belief that there is a public policy interest in ensuring the transition of family farms down the generations. If that was the original basis on which the reliefs were introduced, and if it remains the policy objective to this day, the figures need to be looked at more carefully. The thresholds could be increased or there could be a 10-year clawback—whatever the solution may be; the industry is full of ideas. There are any number of people who will come forward with suggestions for the things that at least some people in Government say they sought to achieve by making the change.

If—the Prime Minister was not very clear about this; well, he was clear that he was not bothered—the object was to avoid the super-rich using land to shelter their wealth, there are better ways of doing that. The Minister will get full co-operation from the farming unions and communities, but in order to have that, there has to be a dialogue. At the moment we are getting nothing from the Treasury. If he takes no other message back to the Treasury today, he should take this: the Chancellor must meet the farming unions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Stringer. I congratulate the hon. Member for Caerfyrddin (Ann Davies) on securing this debate and for engaging with many different pronunciations of the name of her constituency over the course of the last hour and a half. She rightly makes a powerful case for Welsh farming, which all of us in south Wales would like to reinforce.

We will not all agree on the policy under discussion today, but we all agree that topics such as this are important to many and should be properly discussed in this place—ideally at a lower temperature than in this room. I have listened closely to the contributions to the debate, and I thank all hon. Members for setting out their views and for speaking on behalf of not only their constituents, but their acquaintances, friends and family members. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) made a clear case about the emotional, not just economic, importance of land to farmers and farming families. Most of us will have someone close to us who farms, but even those who do not will recognise the huge contribution that our farmers make to our food security, our economy and our rural communities. None of us takes those contributions for granted, and we have heard that today.

Before I turn to the specific points raised by hon. Members, I will briefly—I promise it will be brief—set out the context for the Budget decisions we are debating. This Government’s inheritance matters, however much the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) declines to mention it. We had unsustainable public finances, equally unsustainable and struggling public services, councils going bust and prisons overflowing, so tough decisions were unavoidable in the Budget if we were to restore economic stability, fix the public finances and support public service. That is the backdrop to the decision to reform agricultural property relief.

That decision was not taken lightly, but it was a necessary decision, not least because rural communities lose out more than most when health, transport and council services across the UK do not live up to the standards that any of us expect. It was the right decision, because the Government will maintain significant levels of inheritance tax relief for agricultural property, far beyond what is available for most assets, because we recognise the role that those reliefs play in supporting farmers.

The debate is really about how we balance the objectives of protecting family farms with the public finances and public services. The status quo—the full, unlimited exemption introduced in 1992—has become unsustainable. The benefits have become far too heavily skewed towards the wealthiest estates. Some 40% of agricultural property relief benefits the top 7% of estates making claims. The top 2% claim 22% of the relief, which means 37 estates are claiming £119 million in a single—

[John Glen]

The Minister is a serious economist with a serious track record in analysing public finances. With all due respect, given the significant uncertainty and the fact that numerous organisations representing farming interests outside the party political debate have asked serious questions about the deliverability of the scheme and the amount of money that will be raised, surely he must accept that there is time for people such as he to work with officials to find better ways of finding the sums that he says he needs—I am not disputing that—to do the right thing by the farming communities of this country and not cause the unintended damage that will clearly take effect.

[Torsten Bell]

I thank the right hon. Member for his kind words, even though I cannot agree with everything that followed. I will come on to some of the points that he raised shortly. I think this will come up several times in the course of what remains of the debate, but we cannot use farm valuation data to make claims about inheritance tax claims. On the latter, we have the actual data for the claims made, which is what we rely on.

“Get Britain Working” White Paper

John Glen Excerpts

Tuesday 26th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall]

The Government believe that disabled people have the same rights as everybody else, including the right to work. Our mission is to break down the barriers. Many disabled people would want to work if they could get the right help and support and a job that fits their needs and concerns, with greater flexibility. This is a really important challenge. I do not blame disabled people for often being frightened and worried when they hear about these discussions after what happened over the past 14 years, but we will work with disabled people and the organisations that represent them to get the world of work and the employment support system right and get a better-functioning system of disability benefits. This is a really big challenge for our country, but with these proposals we are taking an important step forward.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s ambition in many of the areas she has set out, and particularly the “Geep Britain Working” initiative. As a Parliament, we must come to terms with the obesity and mental health crises, so I welcome what she is doing with the Secretary of State for Health.

May I bring to the Secretary of State’s attention the work of South Wilts Mencap? I recently met Robin Clifford, and over 14 years I have seen the work that that group of trustees does with the adult learning disabled, a particular and special group of individuals in my constituency. I would welcome the opportunity to meet the Minister for Social Security and Disability to look at programmes that could be started or pilots that could be undertaken to get the learning disabled into meaningful activity where they can make some contribution through paid work.

[Liz Kendall]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that important contribution. I and the Minister for Social Security and Disability would be keen to hear more about that work. I recently visited a supported employment programme—a year-long supported internship—run by my local health service for young people with autism and severe learning difficulties. It started by talking to the parents about what the young people could do, and not just what they could not do. The young people were got on the bus to get them to work. They tried three different jobs around the hospital to find the one that best matched their needs, and after that year every single young person was given a paid job. That is so successful that we are expanding it to the local university and to one of Leicester’s biggest hotel chains. These changes are possible, and I am keen to work with the right hon. Gentleman in his area to ensure that we give these opportunities.