Harriet Cross MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Jan 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  At the Oxford farming conference, the Secretary of State suggested that farms should diversify to be more profitable, but diversification has become a lot less incentivised because that all gets wrapped up into the BPR, as well as the APR. Does that not completely negate the Secretary of State’s argument for diversification if it will all be taken away in tax?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing forward this debate, which is so important. Just this morning, I was at the meeting on food security, speaking to poultry farmers there, and they said that they are already taking decisions not to invest in new buildings, directly because they are now thinking of how they need to save for an APR bill. Of course, that has a knock-on effect on other businesses that will be the suppliers, and therefore we come into the BPR argument as well. Does he share my concerns that, if farmers cannot invest in their holdings, they will not be as profitable in future? It is a huge cycle—a self-fulfilling prophecy that will mean that more farms will be impacted down the line.

• 13 Jan 2025 · Gas Storage Levels · Hansard source

  More

  Last week was the coldest week of the winter. Also last week, 41.9% of our energy mix was gas and just about 25% was wind. We have heard about issues with gas storage, and the Government are penalising the oil and gas sector by extending the windfall tax, not allowing new licences, and removing investment allowances. It feels like this Government are not taking our energy security seriously. Can the Minister reassure the House that that is not the case, and that he will engage with our oil and gas companies to ensure that we are secure in our energy today, despite what they are trying to do for the future?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Public Finances: Borrowing Costs · Hansard source

  More

  Next has said that it will increase prices by 1%, directly because of the increases to national insurance contributions, and has warned of slowing growth. With business confidence plummeting, gilts at a 26-year high and growth stagnating, do the Government still maintain that they have an iron grip on public finances, or will they admit that their Budget has done exactly what the Conservatives warned: increase costs, increase prices and reduce growth?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for securing this important debate. In my constituency, the A96, which goes from Aberdeen to Huntly and up to Inverness, and the A90 north of Ellon are known as accident blackspots. On these roads, we know that local residents are not going out, because of the fear of an accident, which has an impact on our local economy, and emergency vehicle response times. Does he agree that emergency response times and local economic impacts should be part of the basis of assessments of where safety improvements should be put in on roads across the country?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  As I said, the Government can give with one hand and take with the other, which is what is happening with NICs; they are taking that money out of councils, so the increase is completely irrelevant. The removal of the ringfence from some budgets has meant that there has been no real-terms increase in the rural affairs budget in Scotland, and that has impacted our farmers—it goes round in circles. On oil and gas, the changes to the energy profits levy and the removal of the investment allowances in the Budget had an instant impact. Apache announced very soon afterwards that it would pull out of the North sea, citing the onerous impact of the EPL. The Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce warned that 100,000 jobs are at risk, and Offshore Energies UK said that 35,000 jobs tied to specific projects are at risk. Those changes in the Budget have real-life consequences across Scotland, but particularly in Gordon and Buchan, Aberdeenshire, Aberdeen and north-east Scotland. The Budget shows the Labour Government’s fundamental misunderstanding and undermining of Scotland’s economy and communities. From family farms and businesses to distilleries, our energy sector and the high street, the Government have chosen to burden, rather than support, businesses across Scotland.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Livingston (Gregor Poynton) on securing this debate, although I find it odd that Scottish MPs have been celebrating the Budget, as if it was the best thing ever to come to Scotland, given that it is nothing short of disastrous for so many of the key sectors that underpin Scotland’s economy, communities and livelihoods. The Chancellor spoke, and still does, about protecting working people—and, indeed, about growing the economy in order to help working people—yet her decision to increase employers’ national insurance contributions does exactly the opposite. This £25 billion tax grab from businesses impacts on their resilience, growth, investments, hiring decisions and longevity. The scale of this tax rise and the betrayal by Labour, who promised not to raise taxes on working people, including national insurance, is completely unprecedented. For the avoidance of any doubt, and because I know that Labour seems to struggle with this, business owners are working people, and they employ working people—they are working people who contract working people and supply working people, who then can work elsewhere. This NICs rise is a tax on working people across Scotland and the UK, and there is no credible way that that can be denied. It is also an up-front tax and a tax for having employees. Businesses pay it just for having employees on the books, before they even open their doors. Take weeks like this in Scotland, including in my Gordon and Buchan constituency, where many businesses have not opened because of snow and ice; the bill for this tax is still racking up, despite them not being able to trade. Of course, the effects of NICs are felt more widely, not just by businesses. Charities, GPs, pharmacies and local authorities are all also impacted. I have met with my local medical practice in Inverurie, and its NICs bill is going up by £75,000. It cannot pass on that cost, and if it reduced services, its funding would be reduced. What do the Labour MPs who are celebrating the Budget suggest that that practice should do? As I have mentioned, Aberdeenshire council now needs to find £13 million to cover the NICs rises, and that is on top of the £40 million black hole it already faced due to north-east councils being so poorly funded by the Scottish Government. Moving on to other matters, the changes to business property relief and agricultural property relief are cynical, cruel, misguided and absolutely damaging to the key sectors of our economy. Family businesses up and down the country, including in Scotland, are the backbone of our economy. These changes will decimate family businesses, who have been nurturing for generations, who are the centre of their communities and who employ over 14 million people nationwide. The changes to APR, which I have spoken about a lot, demonstrate the Government’s complete disconnect from rural farming and ways of life. We know that the Treasury figures are incomplete. They do not consider farms where only BPR had been claimed. Labour seems to think that all farmers are married, that both spouses will be able to pass on the farm at the same time and that, effectively, it is okay to force farmers into early retirement—for them to have to leave their family home or pay full market rent to stay at the property where they have lived their entire lives. The Treasury is hiding behind the claim that only 2,000 estates will be affected, but the Country Land and Business Association, the National Farmers Union and the National Farmers Union of Scotland say that the number of farms affected will be more like 70,000. These figures need to be considered. The Chancellor, as we know, is literally making farmers decide between selling their farm, their land, their buildings or their machinery to raise the funds. This will leave farms commercially unavailable or severely damaged, and we are talking about farms in our constituencies across Scotland, including many of those of the Labour Members here. We have heard others talking about whisky, so I will touch on that just briefly. The Prime Minister stood in a whisky distillery in Scotland and promised to back the Scotch whisky industry to the hilt, but he failed to mention that he was going to increase tax by 3.6%, bringing the tax on a bottle of whisky to over £12 for the first time.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  The changes to national insurance contributions mean that Aberdeenshire council has to find an extra £13 million in its budget this year. How will that help with education standards and health in Aberdeenshire?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Budget: Scotland · Hansard source

  More

  That means, therefore, that 60% went to everyone else—that 60% of farms in this country rely on APR to pass their farms down to the next generation. They rely on BPR as well. This is the next generation of farmers who provide our food security and who employ people in local and rural areas. Does the Minister not think that that is a really important thing to maintain?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Flooding · Hansard source

  More

  It is widely known that the more impermeable the land—pavements, roads and housing developments, for example—the more likely we are to see flooding. With this in mind, and also bearing in mind the Minister’s response earlier about ensuring that new housing developments are not at risk of flooding, what assessment have the Government made of the downstream impacts of a development and what is happening with flooding further down the valley?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Warm Homes Plan · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State, the Minister for Energy and the Minister for Consumers have all said in this House that the National Energy System Operator’s report shows that the Government’s 2030 target will lower energy bills. However, the report itself explicitly says that it does not do so, and the chief executive officer of the NESO told the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee last week that it “did not set out” to determine “what bills are for consumers.” Will the Minister explain those inconsistencies and take the opportunity to correct the record?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I think my question is about the broader principle of whether it is also value for money. If you are giving tax relief somewhere, you would want to know what the impact of that is—for example, if the impact is on job growth, that is great. But would you not want to know what the impact of it is on a certain thing, compared with if you had spent that money elsewhere? Surely, whether it is positive or negative, an analysis is an important part of seeing whether money is being spent in the most efficient way possible. Jim McMahon: That will be considered in the round. To be clear, however, it was a manifesto commitment to rebalance the on-street with the online, to get back to supporting the high street, and to give sustained support to the businesses that are the backbone of our community. The Bill is delivering that manifesto commitment. We do not shy away from that. We are proud that within the first six months, the legislation is coming and businesses will feel it in every community in the country.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Going back to panel 7, we heard UKHospitality, the British Institute of Innkeeping and the night time economy adviser for Greater Manchester reflect on jobs and job losses due to changes. I appreciate that it is hard to establish at this stage whether those are because of national insurance or business rates, but either way business rates are a contributing factor. What analysis have the Government done as a background to the Bill to model the impact on jobs and job losses in the different sectors? What impact assessment has been done in relation to the different types of employment—full time, part time or seasonal? A lot of hospitality work helps people such as part-time working mothers because it comes at different times of day. Jim McMahon: I think, within the scope of the Bill, which is very narrow, the impact is only a positive one. That is in the context of the temporary relief that was provided during the covid pandemic, which, being temporary, was coming to an end—the cliff edge was coming. There was absolutely no finance provided for it beyond the current year, so the question then is: what do Government do about it? We either grow even further the £22 billion funding gap that was here when we came into office—that is, we continue it—or we say that—

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Ten minutes ago, you said that we have to look at those changes within the scope of all the other changes, so I think it is not unreasonable to look at it as a whole. Jim McMahon: As in, the interventions that the Government are taking?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Thank you all for coming. I will aim my question at Mr Alton, but everyone can probably have a go. Mr Alton, you mentioned 15,000 potential closures, and Mr Lord just said 9,000 in Q1 next year. There was also a figure of, on average, 15 employees per pub. That brings us up to about a quarter of a million potential job losses, which will be across the board—not just full-time jobs, but part-time jobs, holiday jobs and starter jobs. It will have a huge impact. Has the sector, or have you, modelled where those are likely to fall, when they are likely to come and how they might be mitigated? Ultimately, what can be done to prevent those losses or to help those people move into other businesses across hospitality? Steve Alton: Some of that is already happening. Some people are already trimming their staff numbers down anyway to try to get ahead of this, so they have some degree of resilience. The real frustration is the reverse of what you just said: we pride ourselves on being the place that takes people in. We have some amazing charities in our sector that bring in people who are facing homelessness. We have placed over 600 of those individuals into hospitality, put our arms around them and given them a platform. They have already progressed to phenomenal levels of achievement within our sector. That is what is at risk. Equally, the part-timers are under scrutiny right now, because they are triggering a premium payment for the employer. Some of those individuals absolutely depend on that fixed-hours role, because it is the only thing that they can fit in versus their demands, whether childcare or others. It is heartbreaking to see some of those individuals already starting to lose hours and ultimately jobs, but that will come, in a way. That is just direct employment; we have to think about the supply chain as well. When you are looking at the multipliers and the real impact, I ask you to consider that foundational economic place that pubs prop up. Where are all the tendrils that go out into the community—all those connected jobs, from the butchers to the cleaners, the window cleaners and everything in between, that are sometimes hidden? Every job lost in a pub will be connected to multiple jobs in that community that are dependent on the demand that that pub drives. Again, the situation is deeply frustrating, because we know that the Government passionately want to get people back into work, and we are the answer to that. Right now, however, they are unfortunately limiting the potential of our sector to help with that issue. Kate Nicholls: When you look at the job losses in our sector, it is very difficult to strip out and identify the difference between the business rate changes that we are talking about versus the changes in NI. Steve is absolutely right that, for somebody on the minimum wage or just above at 20 hours a week, the effective increase in the employer’s tax on those jobs is 75%. That is where you will see hours cut and jobs reduced as a result of that change. You cannot just dissociate the two. That is why it is very difficult to model this and answer your question specifically about where we will see business failures versus job losses. Clearly, we are looking at—

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Was a job analysis done in the scope of the Bill? Jim McMahon: Those witnesses were very positive about its impact. Lots of other changes will be coming through the system. We still have to do the revaluation. We still have, through the next fiscal programme, to talk about the rates. That type of analysis will be done at a later stage. To be clear, although there was a lot of context about the operating environment being challenging—there is only so much you can do within months of coming into office—on the small business rate issue and on retail, hospitality and leisure, every witness said that the Bill will play a part in supporting local businesses to be more sustainable in the future. The other issues are well outside of the scope of the Bill.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q It could have a positive impact on jobs, but we do not know because we have not had an analysis. Jim McMahon: If we are giving a tax relief to retail, hospitality and leisure for almost all community operators, convenience stores, pubs and other businesses, and we are doing the same for town centres, city centres and high streets, then the answer is self-evident: it will be a positive outcome.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Yes. Jim McMahon: In the scope of the Bill, this is the much-needed relief that retail, hospitality and leisure need. Every one of the witnesses who came to talk about the impact of it, within the scope of the Bill, were—

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q My question is very brief, and is relevant to what Mr Lenon said about margins being tight. Is there a figure for the average margin that one of your schools would expect? How might that be affected by the changes to the business rate relief? David Woodgate: The benchmark is 10% net surplus on gross fees. We had many schools drop down to 5% to break even, and they are now going into deficit in order to meet the quadruple whammy—if I can put it that way.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q Good morning, Mr Watson. What impact do you see the changes to the multipliers having on the number of appeals that are coming through the business rate system? Do you think the appeals are more or less likely than at the moment to have a grounding or a basis? Will they clog up the system? What is your position on that? Gary Watson: I do not see that particularly. The question of appeals is interesting. To pick up on one point on appeals, the thing that we are going to find, if we focus on retail and hospitality, is that at the moment if someone does not receive one of those reliefs from a local authority, the only way they can challenge it is by way of judicial review, which is a very high barrier to meet. What we are finding is that some councils will interpret it and give it, and some councils will interpret it and not give it. What you will find once the Bill goes through is that those challenges will move from judicial review into the magistrates court. If a council chooses not to give a relief, the challenge would be against a liability order application. I think what you will find is that you will get more cases being challenged at a liability order hearing, because however you draft a provision that says, “These people will definitely get it, these people won’t, and these people are subject to whatever,” those challenges will move into a magistrates court. You can argue about whether that is the right place to have those challenges. The institute’s view for a long time has been that having all disputes on business rate, whether it be liability, occupation or mandatory—these reliefs—in the magistrates court is probably not the best place for them. The best place for those is probably in the valuation tribunal where the valuation disputes for business rate goes. All the council tax disputes go to the tribunal, but business rate disputes do not. The revaluation will obviously be the trigger for how many appeals come in, and my valuers have given me a heads up on the areas that will see big increases at the next revaluation. But when you are looking at appeals and you focus on the retail, hospitality and leisure, those challenges will come into the magistrates court. The weakness of that is also that the only way you can challenge it is to refuse to pay the rate to get a summons to go into court and argue to a magistrate. Case law is good because it builds the rating system, but I feel that that might be something to keep an eye on going forward. I think that there will be a lot more appeals against the billing authority’s decision, whereas at the moment they are not challenged through judicial review, because it is a very high barrier to change. The ratepayer could turn around to say, “Well, that council is giving it to me, but that one is not—can you really go to judicial review?” and the challenge would probably be sensible. In my understanding, we have not seen any since those discretions came in.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I understand that James Lowman, the chief executive of the Association of Convenience Stores, has written to the Chancellor following the Budget, and he described how 2025 will be a bleak year for small convenience stores, as they face over £666 million of additional cost. Will the Bill’s changes to the multipliers of domestic rates make a dent in that? Overall, will your convenience stores benefit from the Budget or be disadvantaged by it? How do those two things fit together? Edward Woodall: You are right that our estimation of the cost of the Budget was £666 million, and we wrote to the Treasury to set that out. As I said, I think the Bill provides more structure and permanency in the support for retail, hospitality and leisure relief. I cannot comment on how much it will do, because I do not yet know where the multipliers will be set, but I think there is an opportunity to make the investment environment for businesses better with this Bill. We are not just looking at one single relief; we are looking at it over a period of time and we have the opportunity to discuss how that multiplier is set. One way in which the Bill could facilitate that better is through the procedure for the setting of the lower multiplier, which is currently by negative resolution in the Bill documents. That might want to move to an affirmative resolution so that we can have a debate on whether it goes up or down in the future, so that we can have a closer discussion on those things.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Minister believe that oil and gas companies are still making extraordinary profits?

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I recognise that, which is why it is so important that we protect the jobs and the investment. The companies in our supply chain have the skills and expertise that will drive the transition, as will the investment that comes in, and that is why we need to keep them.

• 10 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We were saying a moment ago how extraordinary it is that they are not here to stand up for their main industry. That shows how much they value or care about jobs across Scotland. We are seeing warning signs already of the impact of these measures. Just a week after the Budget, Apache confirmed that it would cease operations in the North sea, saying: “The onerous financial impact of the EPL, combined with the substantial investment that will be necessary to comply with regulatory requirements, makes production of hydrocarbons beyond 2029 uneconomic.” According to the Aberdeen and Grampian Chamber of Commerce, 100,000 jobs may be at risk across the UK because of the changes. Offshore Energies UK says that 35,000 jobs directly related to projects that may not now go ahead are at risk. New clause 3, which would allow the Government the opportunity to assess and account for the impact of the Bill’s changes on jobs relating to the oil and gas sector, the supply chain and the wider economy, should be welcomed across the Committee.