Scotland
What assessment he has made of the potential impact of changes to inheritance tax relief on Scotland’s agricultural sector.
The Secretary of State was asked—
This Government appreciate the role of farmers and everyone involved in our agricultural sector, and I have been delighted to meet representatives of the National Farmers Union of Scotland and other stakeholders on numerous occasions. On each, I have reiterated that the Government want to strike a fair balance between supporting farmers and fixing our public finances and the public services on which our rural communities rely. As both hon. Members will be aware, the vast majority of farmers will not be affected at all. They will be able to pass the family farm down to their children, just as previous generations have always done. Only the richest estates will be asked to pay, not small family farms, and that is a policy that we on this side of the House are proud to support.
I welcome the new ministerial team to the Dispatch Box, and particularly the Secretary of State, who is back as Secretary of State for Scotland after nearly 20 years. Farmers watching that response will be thinking, “What a load of tosh!” What representations have the Secretary of State and the Minister made to the Chancellor on behalf of farmers in Scotland ahead of the Budget?
As I mentioned, we are in regular dialogue with farming stakeholders and we regularly consider the evidence that is presented to us. I would stress that, while we will always give evidence due consideration—indeed, the Prime Minister said that from this very Dispatch Box last week at Prime Minister’s questions—we will not deviate from our policy objective, which is both to raise revenue and to introduce greater fairness to our tax system. That is exactly what this change does.
It is clear that Scottish Labour and this Government do not care and do not understand our rural communities. If we have no farmers, there is no food. Will the Minister listen to the voices of rural Scots, NFU Scotland and communities up and down this country, and ask the Chancellor to rethink this ruinous inheritance tax reform?
I myself am a representative of rural Scots, as indeed is the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is meeting farmer representatives in his constituency this very week. We are in ongoing dialogue with our constituents and with farming stakeholders. I reiterate that what we say in the course of those dialogues is that we must introduce greater fairness to the system and that three quarters of farmers will not be impacted at all.
There are many factors that make family farms viable, including the ability to work the land and carry out what is a very physically demanding job. Does the Minister agree that tackling the fundamental problems in our NHS and the growing waiting lists in Scotland must be a priority when balancing competing pressures, given that poor access to healthcare disproportionately affects those working in Scotland’s farming and rural constituencies?
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. Since the election, the UK Government’s plan for change has delivered an extra £5.2 billion to the Scottish Government—funding that can be used to improve the performance of devolved public services such as the NHS. In June, an additional £9.1 billion of funding for the Scottish Government was announced in the spending review, so rural communities like my own are right to ask when they will see improvements in their access to healthcare. I would also like to take the opportunity to commend charities such as the Farm Safety Foundation and its brilliant Yellow Wellies initiative for the work that they do to support the mental and physical health of farmers and all in our rural communities.
The proposed changes to agricultural property relief in Scotland will ensure that, by still providing full relief for the first £1 million of assets, farmers continue to benefit from Government support far beyond that which is available to other assets. Given that 7% of claimants—117 claimants—receive two fifths of all agricultural property relief at a cost of some £219 million, does the Minister agree that this Government’s reforms are essential not only for fairness but to help fund vital public services in rural Scotland?
Our reforms mean that the majority—almost three quarters—of those claiming the relief will not be affected. Only the richest estates will be asked to pay more. This is a fair approach that balances fixing our public finances with maintaining support for small family farms and businesses.
Order. It says Scotland in the title for these questions. They are not linked to Northern Ireland. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
The agricultural sector is woven into the fabric of communities across Scotland. It employs thousands and contributes millions annually to the economy, but farmers across Scotland have been left in fear for their families’ future and their way of life because this Government want to tax them out of existence. Despite the clear messages from the farming community, supported by the NFUS, this Government are ploughing on regardless and completely ignoring the damage they are doing. The truth is that they do not understand—and worse: because those people do not vote Labour, they do not care, do they?
I will reiterate it in case the shadow Secretary of State did not hear me: both myself and the Secretary of State represent semi rural and farming constituencies. We are in ongoing dialogue with constituents. We absolutely understand the pressures they face, which is why we have said that we will support family farms and that only the very richest will be affected. Our constituents rely on public services and they require investment in those public services, and that is exactly what this tax change was designed to do: introduce fairness but also raise revenue that will benefit all our communities, including rural Scots.
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Archibald Young, a foundry in my constituency, manufactures components that are vital to our national security, yet it now faces a devastating blow from Labour’s tax changes. We are hearing that food production—another cornerstone of national security—will also be decimated by these measures. This issue goes to the heart of the protection of our country. Does the Minister agree that Scottish businesses that are essential to national security must be safeguarded, and will she commit to meeting me and others with similar concerns to discuss that?
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady, and I welcome her to her new position. Food security is indeed national security, and national security is the No. 1 priority of this Government. We are trying to safeguard it in a number of ways, including through our commitment to food security and, indeed, energy security. I would be delighted to discuss it with her further.
Oil and gas from the North sea will remain part of our energy system for decades to come. As a Government, we are strengthening our energy security, and as part of that effort, we are investing in home grown clean power and energy through Great British Energy. We are committed to a fair and orderly transition. Next week, I will be in Aberdeen to meet energy companies from across the north east.
We all know that the Government’s energy policy is unsustainable. It has even been reported that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is looking at authorising tiebacks to access new oil and gas wells using existing infrastructure in the North sea. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that if we want to increase energy security and reduce energy prices for households and businesses, we must expand the use of the energy resources available to us, including North sea oil and gas?
As I sought to reflect in the first answer, oil and gas will be a central part of our energy mix in the United Kingdom for decades to come, but it is also right to recognise that there is a transition that needs to be managed and there was an abject failure by the previous Government to manage it. That is why we saw tens of thousands of jobs going in the North sea without the level of investment that we are now seeing from GB energy to manage that transition effectively.
Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the Conservatives have got a cheek? Some 77,000 jobs drifted out of the North sea under their Government, and they did not lift a finger. This Government, along with the Scottish Government, invested £18 million in a transition fund to help oil and gas workers move into energy jobs. That will be an uneven transition, but it is an inevitable one. Does the Secretary of State agree that that is what comes from having a Government with an industrial strategy that puts workers first?
I find myself in agreement with my hon. Friend from the Western Isles. The North sea has provided decades of good jobs, not just for people from the Western Isles and across Scotland but from the whole of the United Kingdom. The last Conservative Government did not believe in industrial strategy—it is as basic as that. It is not just a difference of policy; it is a difference of philosophy. We believe in open markets and an active state. That is why we set up GB Energy, that is why there is a transition fund and that is why people can rely on Labour.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman back to the Dispatch Box as Secretary of State for Scotland after his sabbatical over the last 20 or so years. The messianic zeal of his colleague the Energy Secretary to see the destruction of our oil and gas industry is having real life consequences. Scottish workers are being made unemployed in their thousands, while this Government ban the drilling and exploration of oil and gas in British waters, and import more gas from Norway, which gets it from the very same sea that we are prevented from exploiting. Come on, Secretary of State; it is all a little unhinged, isn’t it?
Where to begin? We have a Government that have invested in GB Energy and that have a transition fund up against an Opposition that abjectly failed in their responsibilities towards the North sea. We just heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Na h Eileanan an Iar (Torcuil Crichton) that 77,000 jobs were lost. That is the record that they own, and we will continue to point it out.
The Secretary of State for Energy is not the messiah. Week after week, I come to this Chamber to ask Energy Ministers and Scotland Office Ministers why they are content to sacrifice one of this country’s greatest national assets and allow highly skilled workers to go on the scrap heap or go overseas. As Scotland’s man at the Cabinet table, the Secretary of State knows that his job is to speak up for those people who are losing their jobs today, not to defend the Secretary of State for Energy. Will he explain that to the people of Aberdeen when he visits next week?
I gently remind the shadow Secretary of State that there is a difference between abuse and argument, and in relation to his substantive arguments, of course I am happy to be Scotland’s voice at the Cabinet table. That is why only next week I will be meeting a range of energy companies based in Aberdeen and listening directly to them. That dialogue has already started. I think we can do better than his question.
The Scotland Office is backing Scotland’s communities with our £292 million pride in place investment. The plan will support grassroots movements that restore local people’s power, boost national pride and help people get on in life. It will revitalise our high streets, create jobs and improve safety and security. More than that, it will give expression to this Government’s core belief that communities are powerful and that in every corner of our country, we find millions of so called ordinary people doing their best and doing their bit to transform the places they love for the people they love.
The UK Government are investing more than £41 million of funding in my constituency, including the recently announced pride in place award. That will unlock the potential of my West Dunbartonshire constituency, matching the level of ambition I have to regenerate our town centres and communities and make them fit for the future. Does the Secretary of State agree that this is in stark contrast to the SNP, which has given up on our communities right across Scotland and in West Dunbartonshire?
I commend my hon. Friend on his ambition for his seat and his sterling advocacy for it. He is right that this funding will help revitalise our high streets, create jobs and improve safety and security in Scotland. He is also right that the SNP is desperately out of touch with its squabbling over independence while services across Scotland are at breaking point.
Since the election last year when Labour came to power, our constituents in Scotland have seen their friends in England and Wales see real improvements in their communities and public services, while they look on and wonder what the SNP Government are squandering Scotland’s share on. Does the Minister agree that key to the success of the pride in place funding and projects, including the £41.5 million coming to Lanarkshire, is that we are putting power directly in the hands of people to make decisions about investments in their own communities?
My hon. Friend is right that both her constituents and mine look with some envy to the other side of the border where millions of extra NHS appointments have been secured while waiting lists in Scotland go up and up. Local communities are at the heart of Scottish life, which is why we are giving them control over hundreds of millions of pounds of investment to revitalise their high streets, take ownership of important local assets and build thriving and prosperous places to work, live and visit.
The Government’s pride in place initiative—their equivalent of levelling up—should be great and should be felt across Scotland, but unfortunately we are feeling the opposite in north east Scotland because of the Government’s energy policies. Our high streets need regeneration after a decade of disastrous decline in the sector, whether that is from SNP or Labour policies. How will the Government act to ensure that our high streets in north east Scotland will not be further decimated?
I remind the hon. Lady that, of course, her constituents benefit from a city region and growth deal—there is investment going into her area. If she has complaints about the decline of her constituency, I suggest that she looks at her colleagues and holds them accountable for 14 years of catastrophic economic mismanagement by the Conservatives.
As long as I get any opportunity, I will continue to ask why Perth, and Perth and Kinross, is not getting one penny from the current allocation. Why has Perth and Kinross never had one single penny from any Government allocation? Why did this Labour Government take away the £5 million that we finally got from the Conservatives? Finally, when is Perth, and Perth and Kinross, going to get its fair share?
The allocations under the pride in place programme have been evidence led, based on data and on a formula that is progressive and puts money into the pockets of those who need it most. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about where money in Perth and Kinross has gone, I suggest he asks the First Minister of Scotland, who is from his own party and has received more than £5 billion. His constituents, like mine, will be asking, “Where’s the money gone, John?”
This Government are taking action to support vulnerable families this winter, including by expanding the warm home discount scheme, which means that more than 500,000 households now benefit from that £150 payment—one in five Scottish households.
Will the Minister acknowledge the unfairness that my constituents in Skye, and indeed people all across rural Scotland and rural Great Britain, are paying four times as much to heat their houses using locally generated renewable electricity—often while looking at wind turbines outside their windows—than those in cities who heat their houses using imported high carbon gas, which is largely due to the fact that the environmental tariffs fall wrongly on the renewables and not on the carbon fuel gas?
Communities can feel tangible benefits, but those community benefits are largely voluntary at the moment. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, however; that is why this Government are considering mandating the provision of community benefit funds for low carbon energy infrastructure across the United Kingdom. We will have more to say in our plans when they are set out later this year.
It is estimated that more than 70,000 households in Glasgow live in fuel poverty. The UK Government’s extension to the warm home discount will mean that many of those families receive money off their energy bills. Can the Secretary of State outline how people can access that support?
The good news is that those in receipt of pension credit that tops them up to a minimum weekly income will continue to receive the discount automatically. The scheme is opening again this month; anyone who thinks they may be eligible, in Glasgow or elsewhere across Scotland, should contact their energy supplier.
I was elected on a very clear manifesto, which made clear that this UK Labour Government do not support independence or another referendum. If, after 18 years, the SNP is not prepared to run on its record, that begs the question: what kind of record have they left, after 18 years in power? Behind the smokescreen it has tried to create by talking about independence, we know the reality: one in six of us on waiting lists, rising violence and falling standards in our schools. Frankly, Scotland deserves better.
I thank the Secretary of State for his unequivocal rejection of separatism. He will always find on the Conservative side fellow colleagues who treasure this United Kingdom and want to shout about the most successful alliance in political history. What specific steps can he take to prevent more taxpayers’ cash being squandered as the SNP pursues its doomed dream?
As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Scotland made clear, we have committed £5.2 billion to the Scottish Government this year—the largest settlement in the 25 years of devolution. There is a very basic question that we Scots are asking: “Where’s the money gone, John?” The reality is that our services are getting worse, not better, and we see industrial level waste from the SNP. That is why it is time for a new direction.
I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his place, although it seems that his appointment has not been universally welcomed. Indeed, I hear that the Daily Record, having asked his Labour colleagues for their opinion, feared an asterisk shortage. One particularly caustic comrade said: “If I had a pound for everyone who liked Douglas, I would have 50p.”
But rest assured, Mr Speaker, his appointment was welcomed with open arms on the SNP Benches, and I have to admit to having a grudging admiration for him as someone who cares not about the opinion of other people. But with Labour tanking in the polls, and independence the majority view in—
Order. Mr O’Hara, this is meant to be a question, not a statement.
Well, Mr Speaker, the quality of the SNP’s contributions does not seem to have improved since 2007, and neither has its arguments. In the face of failing schools and hospitals, and the inability to build ferries in the hon. Gentleman’s own constituency, what do we see? Once again, dreary documents about independence. The reality is that the SNP has let Scotland down, and Scotland deserves better. That is why we are up for the fight in May.
The SNP’s renewed chatter on independence is understandable, because it wants to distract from its abysmal record of running down our public services. Given that its plans for defence in an independent Scotland include giving up the nuclear deterrent and replacing it with little more than a Scottish navy comprising the Waverley and the Vital Spark, does the Secretary of State agree that Vladimir Putin will be rubbing his hands with glee at the SNP’s latest outbursts?
I am a great fan of Para Handy, the Vital Spark and the Waverley, but I would not want to offer them in the face of Vladimir Putin as an approach to Euro Atlantic security. The reality is that we have student gesture politics from the Scottish National party. I met with the major defence companies in Greenock last Friday, and they were very clear that we are forgoing industrial opportunities now. There is a real cost to the incompetence and student naiveté of the Scottish National party.
Businesses in my constituency and across Scotland need stability, certainty and opportunity. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is what they are getting from a Labour Government, which stands in stark contrast to the instability and uncertainty of the SNP and its obsession with independence?
Returning to the Dispatch Box as the Secretary of State for Scotland, I think it is striking that the SNP’s answers are no better than they were in 2017, 2014 or 2021. I simply ask: what is its policy on a Scottish currency? What is its policy on foreign reserves? What is its position on a Scottish pension? It is no better at answering those questions now than it was 20 years ago.
May I join other Opposition Members in welcoming the Secretary of State to his place? I wish him well in that job.
My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll, Bute and South Lochaber (Brendan O’Hara) is not the only one with a quote that might be of interest to the Secretary of State; I have another one here. Can he tell us who said this? “If there is a majority”—an SNP majority—“it has got to be looked at in Westminster.” Who said that?
I sense that it might be myself. We would take seriously any SNP majority, but if the SNP is returned to office, I hope it will do better than it has done over the past 18 years. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we on the Government Benches are not anticipating defeat; we are working for victory.
Well, this might get just a little bit awkward. The quote was not from the Secretary of State, although I welcome his contribution; it was actually from his boss, the leader of the Labour party and the current Prime Minister, who is about to turn up. That is very awkward indeed—[Interruption.] There he is. Will he stick to that commitment, or will we see Labour break yet another promise?
Not least because he has just turned up, let me say that I always agree with my boss. The reality is that we are clear and unequivocal that we do not want the break up of the United Kingdom. As Scots, we made our choice in 2014, and that was for a better future within the United Kingdom.
This Government are working tirelessly to reduce the cost of living in Scotland. We have introduced a national living wage, delivered a generational upgrade to workers’ rights and helped the Bank of England to cut interest rates five times, putting money into people’s pockets across Scotland. Furthermore, thanks to our stewardship, the International Monetary Fund forecasts the UK to be the second fastest growing G7 economy this year.
Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom where child poverty is falling, and it is also the only part of Great Britain with a non Labour Government. I am sure the Minister agrees that the rest of the UK deserves better, so will she be calling on the Chancellor to scrap the two child cap in the upcoming Budget?
A child poverty strategy is on the way and will be released in due course. I can underscore our commitment to fighting child poverty with every breath we have. That is what Labour Governments have always done, and it is what this Labour Government will do, too.
This weekend, thousands of people will march in Edinburgh to say that Scotland demands better. We are right to do so, because the Poverty Alliance says that one in six adults in Scotland—around 1.2 million people—are living in food insecurity. What are the Scotland Office and the wider Labour Government doing to end food insecurity for Scots?
Our commitment to ending poverty is clear. We have had a clear focus on living standards; work is increasingly now paying; and we are focusing on ensuring that none of Scotland’s children is subject to the poverty that the hon. Member so vividly describes.
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I am sure that the whole House will know that this weekend the Rugby League Ashes returns for the first time since 2003. I place on the record my very best wishes to the England team, who will make the major rumble in London this weekend—the first of three matches against Australia.