Victoria Atkins MP: speeches

Speeches

• 3 Jun 2025 · Thames Water · Hansard source

  More

  It is just to correct the record, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State has given the impression in his answers—without, I am sure, intending to—that the investigations of which he is very proud, from July last year, were a direct result of Labour winning the election in July. That is simply incorrect. As I have drawn to his attention on Twitter, courtesy of a press release on 20 February last year, we in fact invested some £55 million in further investigations, which is the—

• 28 Jan 2025 · Water (Special Measures) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Gentleman, as a Back-Bench MP, is presuming to tell a regulator with criminal powers how to investigate and prosecute companies or indeed any defendants, we need to be very careful, because never before in our law have we permitted Members of Parliament and Ministers to direct independent investigators on whom to investigate and prosecute.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for setting out clearly the choice ahead of Members across the House. We on the Opposition Benches know who we are standing up for. We back our farmers. We understand how difficult farming is as a way of life. It will be for individual Members of Parliament to decide how they vote.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening. The evidence is building again and again against the assurances that the Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Exchequer Secretary and the farming Minister have given the House. Frankly, the farmers outside deserve better, and so do we as Members of Parliament. I will give way to the hon. Lady and then carry on with the calculations that the Government have got so wrong.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  My apologies, Mr Speaker. I am reminded of paragraph 4.11 of the CAAV report, which sets out the peculiar legal problems posed by the family farm tax in the context of Scottish farming tenants. It is incredibly complicated, but that is a real concern, and I trust that the SNP will be exploring it alongside Conservative Members of Parliament. In conclusion, before ambitious Back Benchers, or, indeed, the Exchequer Secretary, get to their feet and accuse these farmers, and us, of scaremongering—something they have been happy to do in the past—they should think on, discover some humility and compassion, and ask why tens of thousands of decent, hard-working and sensible people across the United Kingdom know that the Chancellor has got it so wrong. Polling by the Country Land and Business Association today shows what the public think: they do not think farmers should be whacked with the family farm tax. They think that Labour has broken its promise to end countryside decline; they think the Government should be cutting taxes on rural businesses; and 70% are not confident that the Labour Government can deliver growth to rural communities. I say to every hon. Member on the Government Benches: do the right thing and stand up for our farmers, who are the best in the world and whose produce is renowned globally. They feed us, and now they need us. Labour MPs need to join us and axe the family farm tax.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  Do not worry; I will deal with that. I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the important issue of mental health in farming across the national health service. I was proud to work, as a Member of Parliament and as Secretary of State for Health, to massively increase investment in mental health services. If he is a rural MP, I am sure that he will know how isolated farmers can be and the pressures on their emotions at the best of times—they have the weather, diseases and crop cycles to contend with. This pressure merely adds to that, as we have already heard from farmers who have contacted me. I also gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the family farm tax—or tax on tragedy, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) called it so bleakly—will raise £500 million in 2026-27. According to the King’s Fund, that is equivalent to about a day’s worth of services in the NHS in England. It will not be quite the game changer that some in the hon. Gentleman’s party believe it to be. What about the family in the south-west whose beloved father died a decade ago in tragic circumstances, leaving three young children who are now in their teens? The mother has run the farm and brought up their children in the midst of their grief. She has now been diagnosed with a life-threatening illness at the age of 50. Two of the children want to carry on the farm when they reach 18 but, should the unthinkable happen and they lose their mum, they will be saddled with Labour’s family farm tax of £700,000. What empathetic and meaningful response does the Secretary of State, who is not in his place—where is he?—or the Treasury Minister have for that family? They will be watching and listening. We took the unusual step of giving lots of notice to Labour MPs that we would debate Labour’s family farm tax today. We did that because we wanted to give Labour MPs in rural seats time to reflect and consider whether they can continue to support this vindictive tax. For example, a Welsh landowner told me that he will have to sell six tenanted farms to pay Labour’s family farm tax. That is six farming families—who we on the Opposition Benches would describe as working people—who will lose their businesses, their family homes and their children’s farming futures. Those six farming families have been forgotten by this Government. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) has called on the Treasury to produce its modelling on the impact on family farms. Will the Treasury do that, at the Back Bencher’s request? How will he vote today? The hon. Member for South East Cornwall (Anna Gelderd) met farmers earlier this month and claimed that she would take their concerns back to Westminster. Will she raise those today and vote against this tax?

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  As the first female Prime Minister said, if they are going after you personally, it means you are winning the argument. Let me help the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby with the second set of calculations that her Chancellor has got so wrong, because the Chancellor’s cockeyed accounting extends to the claim that farmers will be able to transfer £3 million tax-free. That is wrong. Only a few in a specific set of circumstances will be able to claim that magic figure. [ Interruption . ] There are jeers from Government Members, but that amount is not available to widows, it is not available to people who are single and it is not available to people who own a farm with another relative. Labour’s magic £3 million figure assumes that the surviving spouse lives some sort of monastic existence where they have no personal effects to pass on to their loved ones. As farmers from Sussex have asked, why are widows’ families being targeted? A family wrote to me about their mother, who is a widow. They have calculated that they face an additional £200,000 tax bill from Labour because their father died before the Budget and so did not know to transfer his allowance. We know that some Labour Members of Parliament have concerns. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), who represents over 500 farms—I do not know whether he is in his place—has asked for assurances on the accuracy of figures used by the Government. Given the demolition of the Chancellor’s figures by the CAAV and many others, will he vote for the family farms in his constituency or will he toe the party line? The CAAV’s concern about the figures being peddled by the Government is shared by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, CBI Economics and even the Office for Budget Responsibility. But it is not just about the numbers: Labour Members need to understand the emotional toll of this terrible tax. It is the worry, the distress and the sense of betrayal felt by families that should stop ambitious Labour MPs in their tracks before they parrot without question the figures given to them by their Ministers.

• 4 Dec 2024 · Farming and Inheritance Tax · Hansard source

  More

  It is a great pleasure to have the right hon. Gentleman not just as a friend but as my Lincolnshire neighbour. He has put his finger on the point—genuinely, it is the next paragraph in my speech. Some Labour MPs must be haunted by the phrasing from the Secretary of State during the general election campaign—because I suspect that they repeated it up and down the market towns and villages in their constituencies—when he described fears that Labour would impose this family farm tax as “desperate nonsense”. Labour candidates will have repeated that line and assured the farming families in their constituencies that Labour would never treat rural communities in that way, yet within weeks the Chancellor was planning to do exactly that. Since then, families across the country have been trying to work out how to pick up the pieces after Labour’s family farm tax bomb. They will not forget. A farmer from Derbyshire emailed me this week to say: “Our hard work and investment as a family has been wiped away in the stroke of a pen.” They went on to say: “My 60 year old husband had a bleed on the brain in June and thankfully has made a full recovery but I’ve never seen him so stressed. He doesn’t know what to do”. Hon. Members representing seats in Derbyshire may wish to reflect on how they will respond to that. A farmer from Northumberland has written to me as follows: “We had to talk about which one of my parents are going to die first, in front of them.” He said that Labour is “destroying people’s lives with this policy. Many of us are worried about the mental state of many within agriculture and are concerned that it may be the final straw for some.” In fairness, the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris), who is in his place, has voiced concerns about whether his Government are listening to ordinary people about this. Will he vote for his farmers or will he toe the party line?

• 11 Nov 2024 · Rural Affairs · Hansard source

  More

  I know the hon. Gentleman’s part of the world very well and I am sure—I can sense that he will be a conscientious local MP, mindful of his small majority—that he will badger the Health Secretary and ask him why he has not delivered the Conservatives’ dental recovery plan, which this autumn would have seen dental vans in rural and coastal areas, because as the Secretary of State I wanted to ensure that those areas had dentistry services, and golden hellos for new dentists setting up in rural and coastal areas. We were also introducing additional dental training places. We can all see the need in our rural areas, but the jobs tax and the family farm tax are not the answer. This Government love raising taxes, so they are also raising taxes on fertiliser, on double-cab pickups and on business asset disposal relief, while risking food security by permitting solar and wind industrial plants to be built on prime agricultural land. The great shame is that none of this is necessary. This Chancellor’s cockeyed accounting is not believed by farmers, the public or even the OBR. In government, we provided the largest ever programme of grants to farmers and brought the farming budget to its highest ever level. We provided more than £5 billion for flood protection, and established a new national rural crime unit. But we also understood that farmers and rural communities need dynamic support, and that is why we committed to raising the farming budget by £1 billion over this Parliament—a move this Labour Government have failed to replicate. Their freeze in the farming budget with no guarantee of a forthcoming increase means they have chosen to offer farmers and rural communities a real-terms cut. That all adds up to a direct risk to food security, because if our farmers do not thrive, domestic food production suffers, and that means more imports and higher prices. This is the “don’t bother” Budget from the “don’t care” Government. This is the Labour Government’s choice and they should own it. They have turned their backs on rural communities and we will not forget. We will not forget that this Government are happy to plough straight over anyone who is not a trade unionist. We will not forget the huge bills put by this Chancellor on to working people, pensioners, farmers, pub landlords, business owners, and students. I repeat the pledge by the Leader of the Opposition—the Conservatives will reverse the cruel family farm tax. To all farmers, farming families and rural communities out there, I say that we Conservatives stand with you, we have your back and we will work night and day to hold this useless Labour Government to account.

• 7 Oct 2024 · NHS Performance: Darzi Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  I will help the hon. Gentleman, because I appreciate that he is new to this place. If he had been listening carefully to me, he would have heard that I am and have always been—in fairness, I hope the Health Secretary would acknowledge this as well—very open about the fact that the NHS needs reform. In fact, I said as Secretary of State that I wanted to reform our NHS to make it faster, simpler and fairer. By the way, I speak with personal experience. I know there are some Members on the Back Benches who are new to this place and perhaps have not quite moved on from the natural competitiveness of a general election campaign, but I was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of three. I have seen the very best of the NHS, but I have also seen some of its darkest corners. The NHS is genuinely one of the reasons why I came into politics, and one of the most damaging things about political discourse and the healthcare system in this country is when people seek to attribute to others a lack of care or commitment to our healthcare system, just because we have different ways of tackling these challenges and different solutions. This is why—I will say this again, because I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is listening—I will work constructively with him to improve the health service, but we have to do this on the facts. Some of the suggestions he made in the debate today and in his discourse during the general election campaign and so on are not accurate, and this is where I will pull him up. For example, he has not mentioned the introduction of Pharmacy First or the 160 community diagnostic centres. Just to help him, those were backed by the largest central cash investment in MRI and CT scanning capacity in the history of the NHS. Those, as well as the new surgical hubs that we introduced, are not only putting healthcare into the community but, critically, helping to improve the numbers of chest checks and scans going through the system, which means speedier diagnosis.

• 7 Oct 2024 · NHS Performance: Darzi Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  On this, the first anniversary of Hamas’s horrific attack on Israel, our thoughts are with Israel, the victims of that horrific attack and their loved ones, and with all those who are trying to rescue the hostages, get aid where it is needed and bring peace to the region. Day 95 of this fumbling Labour Government, and yet another general debate to talk about a report that we talked about three weeks ago. That seems to be the golden—or Gray—thread running through this Government: lots of talk, but where is the action? If the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care wanted to make a meaningful contribution to the nation’s health, why did he not bring forward the Second Reading of the Tobacco And Vapes Bill this evening, to help our children and bring about the first smokefree generation? That Bill is ready to go; why are the Government not? The right hon. Gentleman could have provided an update to the House on the 40,000 more appointments that he promised many times during the campaign, which the latest answer from his Minister to a written parliamentary question suggests is nowhere near happening. It is perhaps about as likely as the Prime Minister paying for his own glasses. The right hon. Gentleman could have set out the steps that his Department is taking to prepare the NHS for winter. In the spring, I asked the system to start planning for this winter. How many beds, ambulances and care packages has he put into the system to prepare it for winter? He could have set out the terms of the royal commission on social care. We in the Conservative party stand ready to help on that royal commission, because we believe in constructive opposition, yet we have heard nothing from this Government. The right hon. Gentleman could have launched the much-hyped 10-year plan, which he promised before the election was “oven-ready”, but appears to be in the deep freeze. How many more Government resets will there be before that 10-year plan is launched? Instead, in their first 95 days, this Labour Government have talked down the economy and the NHS, stopped new hospitals from being built, scrapped NHS productivity improvements, overseen GPs entering industrial action, been exposed in a health cronyism scandal, and opened a dispute with hundreds of thousands of nurses and midwives. They seek to justify all of that with the Darzi report. That report, from a former Labour Health Minister, has sunk as quickly as it was briefed out. It looks backwards, but not far enough to mark the last Labour Government’s policy and operational failures. If this Government are serious about reforming the NHS—and I genuinely hope they are—they and the Secretary of State need to transition quickly from opposing to governing.

• 7 Oct 2024 · NHS Performance: Darzi Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  We entered into that negotiation in good faith, and I gently remind Labour Members of Parliament who were here before the last election that again and again I asked the right hon. Gentleman and Labour MPs to condemn the strike actions and they refused to do so, because we know of their links to their union paymasters— [ Interruption. ] I will just say “train drivers” and leave that hanging in the air. When I asked the right hon. Gentleman during Health and Social Care questions in July whether he was going to cut services or whether the Chancellor was going to raise taxes for the junior doctors pay rise, he assured the House that any pay rise would be affordable. How affordable does his deal look now? He has given resident doctors an inflation-busting pay rise for being on strike, and he is paying them for the days they were on strike. He did that with no reform and no productivity improvements attached to it, and with more strikes threatened for next spring. Completely foreseeably, that has led to nurses and midwives asking why they should accept less. Simply telling nurses, “We’re on your side” will not heat their homes this winter. The report does not deal with the here and now; it looks only at the past. Indeed, the Darzi report talks about the importance of capital investment, so if the right hon. Gentleman intends to use the report to inform his policy decisions, as he says he does, why is he stopping new hospitals from being built? There are now 24 hospitals whose futures are at risk, despite commitments from the right hon. Gentleman and Labour candidates during the election campaign. Labour candidates in Watford, Hillingdon, Milton Keynes, Leeds and Basingstoke made promises to their voters that are now at risk under this Labour Government. Patients in Chelsea and Fulham, Truro, Harlow, Plymouth and Kettering will not get the investment and upgrades that they deserve, despite the promises of their Labour candidates. [ Interruption. ] Do not believe a word when this Secretary of State says, as he is saying now, that it is because of the economy. The truth is that he had been planning to pause those hospitals since May 2023. For those who are wondering, the details are in his health mission paper, which was published to great fanfare in May 2023—page 6, if that helps. He was planning this since May last year, which is exactly why the promises made at the election were so cynical and now need to be revealed. Take a perhaps unhealthy dose of salt with the right hon. Gentleman’s claim that the money runs only until March next year. Let me help this very inexperienced Secretary of State understand basic Treasury rules. The comprehensive spending review period finishes in March. I wish I could have bound this Labour Government to committing to those hospitals in the next CSR period, but I could not. It is his responsibility and his role to fight for funding from the Chancellor to ensure that the hospitals are built. We promised that we would allocate the money needed, and would prioritise the new hospitals in the next CSR period. It is now the job of this Secretary of State to secure the money from his Labour Chancellor. Through our plans to invest in more capital projects, we also sought to improve cancer diagnosis and treatment. While outcomes have improved since 2010, there is much more to do. That is why we opened 160 community diagnostic centres, rolled out new lung cancer screening programmes, and expanded the use of artificial intelligence to speed up diagnoses. Again, we note the lack of any mention of those centres or hubs, which would reduce waiting lists and speed up diagnoses, in this supposedly independent review by the former Labour Health Minister. I want a straight answer from the Minister in their winding-up speech on an issue that is worrying families up and down the country. Cancer is the single biggest killer of children under the age of 14. I launched the children and young people’s cancer taskforce, which brought together top clinicians, leading cancer charities and the Government to combat childhood cancer, and improve diagnosis and access to new treatments. Its launch was warmly welcomed by parents and charities, and experts were lending their time to the taskforce for free, yet this Secretary of State has chosen to pause it. Parents and charities including the Teenage Cancer Trust, Young Lives vs Cancer, and Solving Kids’ Cancer UK cannot understand why the Health Secretary has chosen to stop that work. That is his choice, and the Minister must please explain in the wind-ups why the decision was taken to pause it.

• 12 Sept 2024 · NHS: Independent Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker. We on the Conservative Benches never pretended that everything was fixed. We have not pretended that we have a monopoly on wisdom or that there are easy answers to the difficult challenges we face. For the NHS to thrive in its next 75 years, it needs to reform, modernise and improve productivity. That is why the Conservative Government, working with NHS England, announced the NHS productivity plan at the spring Budget to transform how the NHS works through better IT systems for frontline staff, the expansion of services on the NHS app, which is used by three out of four adults in England, and the use of new technology, including voice-activated artificial intelligence. Together, that would see productivity grow by 2% a year by the end of the decade and unlock £35 billion-worth of savings, yet the plan is not mentioned in the 163-page report. Why is such an important and forward-looking reform missing from the report, and can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is choosing to cancel it—yes or no? New medicines and trials are an essential part of the productivity challenge. There is only one mention of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the 163-page report. Do the Government have a strategy for life sciences and the provision of rare medicines, including cancer and dementia drugs? Why have they paused the childhood cancer taskforce? The need for reform was also why we implemented the first ever long-term workforce plan with NHS England to train even more doctors, nurses, midwives and other healthcare staff for the future. The plan was described by the NHS CEO Amanda Pritchard as “one of the most seminal moments in our 75-year history”, yet it is not mentioned in today’s report. Again, why is such an important and forward-looking reform missing from the report? Is the right hon. Gentleman going to cancel the new places and forms of training, including apprenticeships, that were to be provided through that plan? The need to modernise is why, in 2019, we announced the largest programme of hospital building in modern history: 40 new hospitals across England by 2030 [ Interruption. ] I would be careful if I were some Back-Bench MPs. Today, seven new hospitals have opened, the Midland Metropolitan university hospital will open at the end of the year—I imagine the Secretary of State will enjoy going to its launch—and a further 18 are in construction. We are not even halfway through the decade. Since January 2023, it has been Labour’s plan to pause, review, delay and, presumably, possibly cancel those new hospitals. That was when it published its health mission; it is on page 6 for those who have not read it. In other words, it was always Labour’s plan to delay and possibly cancel the new hospitals, and it has nothing to do with the Chancellor’s questionable accounting since the general election. When that was pointed out in the general election campaign, Labour candidates ran around promising voters that their new hospital or community diagnostic centre was safe with them—in Torbay, Chelsea and Fulham, Basingstoke, Watford, Bracknell, Truro, Corby and Kettering to name a few. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Labour will delay those hospitals?

• 9 Sept 2024 · Government Policy on Health · Hansard source

  More

  I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is betraying his inexperience. It is a shame that he needs all that help and experience; the rest of us have just got on with the job. The Department of Health and Social Care manages incredibly sensitive information, ranging from the development of healthcare policy to the handling of market-sensitive information concerning vaccines and medication, and the rules regarding patient confidentiality. It has emerged that Mr Milburn, a former Labour politician, has received more than £8 million from his personal consultancy firm since 2016. He advises one of the largest providers of residential care for older people, and is apparently a senior adviser on health for a major consultancy firm. [ Interruption. ] A Member sitting opposite says, “So what?” Given the risk of conflicts of interest—that, rather than the right hon. Gentleman’s inexperience, is the point of this UQ—has Mr Milburn declared his business interests to the Department? Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure the House on how such conflicts are being managed, so that we can get a sense of the scale of this open-door policy and Mr Milburn’s access? Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how many meetings Mr Milburn has attended? How many were with NHS England? How many were conducted without ministerial presence? What sensitive information has Mr Milburn been given access to? Does it include information concerning the sale of patient information to pharmaceutical companies? Has Mr Milburn seen internal DHSC or NHSE documents regarding the pricing of medicines and vaccinations, and other market-sensitive information? This is all information that comes across the right hon. Gentleman’s desk, and there is no formal record for understanding what Mr Milburn has seen. If the right hon. Gentleman uses, as he has done just now, the excuse that this is all okay because Mr Milburn is a former Secretary of State and a Privy Counsellor, could the right hon. Gentleman set out where in the ministerial code or the civil service code such an exemption exists for unrecorded access to information by members of the public? I hope the Secretary of State will also confirm his lists of other advisers, their commercial interests and any other members of the public attending meetings that are of a deeply sensitive nature, so that we get a sense of just how far this goes. This is just more evidence of cronyism at the heart of this new Labour Government. Following recent press reports that a Labour party worker had been parachuted into a civil service role in the Department through a closed recruitment process, will the Secretary of State finally come clean to the House and be transparent about who is running his Department and shaping policy for him?